ET Amendment Hearing: Can Tribunal Refuse Later Dismissal Claim Added After Original ET1 Despite Reserved Rights?
I understand this is very long, please bear with me (it's a very complex case).
I’m a litigant in person in an Employment Tribunal claim involving whistleblowing, discrimination, victimisation, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment, detriment, automatic unfair dismissal, ordinary unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, personal injury, aggravated damages, and immigration-linked consequential losses.
The claim arises from what I argue was a continuous course of conduct spanning around 2 years involving the same workplace, same managers, repeated protected disclosures/safeguarding concerns, grievances, disability issues, suspension, and eventual dismissal.
Timeline:
I contacted ACAS less than ~85 days after a key harassment/discrimination event.
EC paused time limits (I believe)
ACAS contacted both parties over a month later, but the employer did not engage meaningfully.
I submitted my ET1 one day before the ACAS deadline expired.
In the original ET1, I expressly reserved the right to bring automatic/unfair dismissal and related dismissal claims if I was dismissed during the ongoing process.
I was then dismissed less than 20 days after submitting the ET1.
The dismissal officer failed to honour OH-recommended reasonable adjustments.
I did not attend the dismissal meeting because the evidence referred to in the invite was not disclosed in advance despite repeated requests and because my OH report recommended advance written material due to anxiety/disability. I could not reasonable prepare. In fact my Trade Union contacted the employer and stated it would be difficult to support me because the dismissal processes (SOSR) was not clear, although I only found out later.
I submitted an amendment application less than 3 months after dismissal and before formal service of the claim. The manager who failed to honour reasonable adjustment was listed as one of the Respondents.
The amendments added the dismissal, appeal issues, and several other managers personally for alleged discrimination/whistleblowing detriment.
The Tribunal later accepted the original ET1 almost half a month after I submitted application for amendments (before the main Respondent, the employer, was served), but the acceptance notice did not refer to the amendments. But the it refused some managers which were added in the first ET1 submitted. It cited EC certificates issues, which I have addressed in the amendments.
I followed up, and the Respondent argued the amendments should be dealt with at a Preliminary Hearing rather than on paper.
I argued for paper determination or an earlier hearing due to immigration/job consequences linked to the litigation timeline.
The Tribunal has now listed the amendment issue for a Preliminary Hearing more than half a year away, with the final hearing itself listed more than 2 years away.
My questions:
In practice, what should I expect at the amendment Preliminary Hearing?
What are the biggest procedural risks/challenges in a case like this?
How do Tribunals usually approach “continuous act/continuing course of conduct” arguments in discrimination + whistleblowing cases?
Does expressly reserving the right in the original ET1 to bring dismissal-related claims later help significantly where dismissal happened shortly afterwards?
Is it realistically possible for a Tribunal to refuse to allow the dismissal claim amendment even though:
dismissal happened after the original ET1;
amendment was made within 3 months of dismissal;
it was submitted pre-service;
and the dismissal arguably arose from the same factual matrix already pleaded?
I understand nobody can predict outcomes. I am mainly trying to understand what procedural approach ET Judges usually take in situations like this.
I have documents (with time stamps) to support the continuous act pleading.