Precision Required: Ensure your submissions are full!

Case Name & Citation 

The recent case of Mr Charles Vessey v Richmond Photography Ltd [2025] EAT 135, Michael Ford KC, 23 September 2025, concerns the scope of permitted amendments to discrimination claims at a CMH where the legal representative provided a Note that may not fully cover the acts complained of by the claimant.

Legal Issue: 

The issue here was whether the ET erred by treating counsel’s Note as defining the scope of amendment as this limited the claims to those relating to dismissal, rather than consider an earlier, broader email from the claimant detailing a much wider set of complaints including complaints leading up to dismissal (paras [10]–[17]).

The EAT concluded that:

“The Tribunal was entitled to treat the Note as the accurate and exhaustive statement of the claims sought to be added.” (para [27])

Key Legal Principle:

Where a claimant adopts a subsequent written document, the ET is entitled to treat that document as determinative of the scope of the amendment. Earlier communications cannot be relied on to enlarge the amendment unless expressly incorporated.

Tribunal Approach / Framework:

The ET must apply Selkent principles when allowing amendments (paras [12]–[14]).

The operative scope of the amendment is what is advanced and approved at the hearing (paras [20]–[23]).

References to earlier documents (e.g., “in summary”) will not preserve additional claims unless expressly maintained (paras [24]–[26]),

“The fact that the Note used the words ‘in summary’ could not rescue the appellant. The content was a re-formulation, not a condensation.” (para [25])

Adequate reasons under Rule 60 ET Rules 2024 are required only on “disputed issues” (para [28]).

Practical Implications:

Representatives must ensure the amendment document expressly states which claims are pursued and which are abandoned.

Tribunals are not obliged to give reasons about claims not advanced in the operative document.

Parties should seek reconsideration immediately if the written reasons fail to capture claims said to be advanced.

Authorities Cited:

Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836 (guidance on amendments) – applied.

Khudados v Leggate [2005] EWCA Civ 1570 (correction to grounds of appeal) – applied (paras [31]–[33]).

Statutory Provisions:

Equality Act 2010: ss.13, 15, 19 (discrimination claims).

Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, r.60 (reasons) (para [28]).

29th Sep 2025

Michael Salter

Call 1999