Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The tribunal is not satisfied that it is just and equitable to permit the claimant to adduce evidence of any alleged acts of discrimination, prior to those already alleged in late 2016,� either as individual heads of claim or as part of an evidential timeline leading up to the headline events in this case.
The claimant�s� claim will therefore be confined to the events of late 2016; the evidence will be confined to those events, except where reference needs to be made to the history of her illness and the response to it by the respondents.
The claimant�s claim may therefore be amended formally to include disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments arising from the events already pleaded as occurring in late 2016.
The claimant indicated at the hearing of this Pre-hearing Amendment Review that she does not now seek to pursue a claim of discrimination regarding part-time working.
The respondents were represented by Ms A Ward, of the Directorate of Legal Services.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.