EAT confirms: Failure to amend can bar subsequent tribunal claims

Legal Issue:

In Szucs v GreenSquareAccord Ltd [2025] EAT 110 the claimant pursued an initial claim concerning his dismissal. Before that claim was heard, he learned that his later job applications to the same employer had been rejected. Instead of seeking to amend his first claim, after his first Final Hearing, he issued a second one containing the complaints of victimisation for his rejected applications. The issue was whether a second claim alleging post-dismissal victimisation amounted to an abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson principle when it could have been included by amendment in an earlier claim.

The tribunal struck it out as an abuse of process. The appeal turned solely on whether that was legally correct.

Key Legal Principle:

The EAT confirmed that the Henderson v Henderson principle applies not only to matters existing at the time a claim is issued but also to events arising before the final hearing. Where facts are known and there is time to seek an amendment, failure to do so can render subsequent proceedings an abuse of process. It is no defence that an amendment might have been refused; the obligation is to bring the matter before the tribunal so it can decide whether to permit amendment or require a separate claim.

Practical Implications:

Practitioners must advise clients that all known matters up to the final hearing should be pursued by amendment to existing proceedings. Failure to apply to amend risks subsequent claims being struck out as abusive, regardless of their merits. Medical or other personal reasons for non-amendment must be evidenced contemporaneously if relied upon.

Authorities Cited:

• Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 (abuse of process doctrine)
• Johnson v Gore Wood [2002] 2 AC 1 (finality; broad merits-based approach)
• Virgin Atlantic v Zodiac Seats [2013] UKSC 46 (forms of estoppel)
• LB Haringey v O’Brien [2016] UKEAT/00004/16 (extension of Henderson to post-issue events)
• Agbenowossi-Koffi v Donvand Ltd [2014] ICR D27 (burden of proof on employer)

Szucs v GreenSquareAccord Ltd [2025] EAT 110 judgment

18th Aug 2025

Michael Salter

Call 1999