Hudson Business Centres Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant appealed a case management decision refusing her application to amend her disability discrimination claim to include direct discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. The EAT held that the claimant's paper apart to the ET1, read fairly and in context, contained sufficient factual averments to support a claim for direct discrimination based on her dyslexia, and that no formal amendment was required as the claim was already extant on the pleadings.

The tribunal erred in concluding there were no facts capable of being relabelled to constitute a direct disability discrimination claim. The language in the claimant's paper apart, particularly 'I suspect MD harboured some concerns about my dyslexia condition, which is officially a disability', when read fairly and in context as a party litigant's pleading, was capable of supporting a claim for direct discrimination under section 13 in addition to the recognized claim under section 15, and therefore no amendment was required.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in refusing the claimant's application to amend her claim to include a claim for direct discrimination on the ground of disability under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010
• •Whether the claimant's paper apart to the ET1 contained sufficient factual averments to support a claim for direct discrimination on the ground of disability
• •Proper interpretation of pleadings by a party litigant, including use of tentative language

The full source document is available from the official publication page.