THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REFS:   5864/09
330/10

CLAIMANT:			XY

RESPONDENT:		Police Service of Northern Ireland 

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
The decision of the tribunal is that:-

(1)	In relation to the claimant’s claim, Case Reference No: 5864/09, the tribunal makes an order granting leave to amend and amends the claimant’s claim form to include reference to the claimant’s allegation that the respondent failed to complete a statutory risk assessment during the claimant’s pregnancy in 2005, as set out in the claimant’s letter to the tribunal dated 8 June 2010.  

(2)	The respondent has leave to amend its response form to the said claim, if it considers it necessary and appropriate to do so, within 14 days of the date when this decision is recorded in the Register and issued to the parties.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone):		Mr N Drennan QC

Appearances:
The claimant was represented by ‘C’.
The respondent was represented by Mr P Coll, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Crown Solicitor’s Office.

Reasons

1.	This pre-hearing review was arranged to consider the claimant’s application for leave to amend the claimant’s claim, Case Reference No: 5864/09, to include the further grounds of sex discrimination, as set out in the claimant’s letter dated 8 June 2010.

2.	In a letter dated 8 June 2010, to the tribunal, the claimant had made an application to amend her claim of sex discrimination, in Case Reference No: 5864/09, to include the allegation that the respondent had failed to complete a statutory risk assessment during her pregnancy in 2005.  During the course of submissions, it became clear that the claimant, in making her application for leave to amend her claim form in this matter, as set out above, did not wish to make a ‘new’ claim of sex discrimination for which she was seeking a determination by the tribunal and/or appropriate remedy; but rather she was seeking to include the said allegation of the failure by the respondent to complete the statutory risk assessment during her pregnancy in 2005, as  evidence in support of her claim of sex discrimination, as already set out in the claim form and the subject-matter of any substantive hearing to be held in due course in this matter.  (See further the guidance set out in case law, such as Anya  v  University of Oxford [2001] IRLR 377 Paragraph 9:-

“ … other evidence alleged by the applicant to constitute evidence pointing to a racial ground for the alleged discriminatory act or decision”.)

3.	Mr Coll, for the avoidance of any doubt, made it clear the respondent does not accept that the respondent failed, as alleged and/or even if it did, that it has any relevance, as evidence, in support of the claimant’s claim of sex discrimination, as originally set out in her claim form.  Clearly, any issues relating to whether there was any such failure and/or the relevance of any such failure, if established, to the claimant’s said claim of sex discrimination, as originally set out in her claim form, will require to be determined by the tribunal, if necessary, at any substantive hearing.  

4.	In light of the foregoing, Mr Coll indicated that he had no instructions to withdraw his objection to the claimant’s application for leave to amend, but he did not intend in the circumstances to make any further submissions to the tribunal in response to the claimant’s amendment application.  

5.	In the circumstances, I was satisfied that it was appropriate, in the exercise of my discretion, to make an order granting leave to the claimant to amend her claim form to include reference to the claimant’s allegation that the respondent failed to complete a statutory risk assessment during her pregnancy in 2005, as set out in the claimant’s letter to the tribunal dated 8 June 2010.  There was no suggestion, on the part of the respondent of prejudice.  As Mummery LJ, in the case of Selkent Bus Company Ltd  v  Moore [1996] IRLR 611, made clear the paramount considerations, in relation to any issue of amendment, are the relevant injustice and hardship involved in refusing or granting an amendment.  Given the nature of the amendment which is now sought to be made by the claimant, as set out above, I am satisfied that, balancing those considerations, it would not be appropriate to refuse the claimant’s application.  Having made the order granting the claimant’s application, I amended the claim form to include reference to her allegation that the respondent had failed to complete a statutory risk assessment during her pregnancy in 2005.  I further made an order that the respondent has leave to amend its response form in Case Reference No: 5864/09, if it considers it appropriate and necessary to do so, as a consequence of the said amendment, within 14 days of when the decision is recorded in the Register and issued to the parties.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	28 July 2010, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: