Mr Paul Thompson v Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service
Hello and welcome back to this week’s case of the week. If you missed last week’s case of the week, click here to read it. This week we look at the case of Mr Paul Thompson v Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service.
Background
The Claimant, had worked as a firefighter since 2001. In 2021, a female colleague made allegations against him related to inappropriate conduct at a training academy. During this period, he went on long-term sick leave due to disability-related ill health. This led to disciplinary proceedings by the Respondent.
In 2022 following the outcome of the disciplinary hearing, the Claimant was given a final written warning, demotion, and mandatory redeployment. The Claimant, believed these outcomes were discriminatory and not a reflection of his health condition. He alleged both disability discrimination and sex discrimination, arguing that his illness was not appropriately accommodated and that he was treated more harshly than a female comparator.
Without legal assistance the Claimant, submitted his original claim to the Employment Tribunal in May 2022. His submission included a summary provided by a union representative. Although the content emphasised his grievances, it did not outline the legal claims in the same manner a lawyer would.
Because of the vague nature of the claim, the Tribunal initially asked the Claimant to clarify the allegations by providing dates, people involved, and the conduct in question. The Claimant complied with this request. As his case progressed, the Claimant gained direct access legal representation. However, things got more complicated when he attempted to expand on his claim.
The Tribunal conducted several preliminary hearings, during which the Claimant was asked to produce a revised version of his claim that clearly marked what was being added or clarified. This was supposed to replace his original unclear submission and align everything in one document. He submitted that document on time and included the requested details: specific events, dates, names, legal categories (e.g., direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010), and which claims were new or amended.
Despite this effort, the Respondent raised objections, arguing that the Claimant was trying to submit entirely new claims or ones that weren’t in the original claim form. The Employment Judge at the time agreed, stating that the Claimant had failed to comply with the order for a clear amendment and refused permission to amend. He said the proposed document lacked clarity, imposed a burden on the Tribunal and Respondent to figure out what was being argued, and undermined fair case management.
The Tribunal also expressed dissatisfaction with how the case had unfolded—calling it a “dog’s breakfast” and emphasised that the Claimant had treated the claim as a “movable feast,” changing it along the way.
Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)
The Claimant appealed to the EAT on four grounds, arguing that:
- Firstly, he had substantially complied with the Tribunal’s earlier order.
- Secondly, the refusal to allow amendments did not consider the legal balancing exercise required.
- Thirdly, he was not given a fair chance to argue all aspects of his amendment application
- Lastly the ET’s comments suggested a degree of bias or pre-judgment.
The EAT agreed with the Claimant on the first two points. The EAT concluded that the Claimant had materially complied with the order and that the refusal to amend was harsh and flawed. The Judge criticised the lower tribunal’s approach for failing to consider whether allowing the amendments would ultimately serve justice, a key legal standard known as the ‘Selkent principles.’
While the EAT did not find enough evidence to prove bias or improper conduct, it acknowledged that the ET’s language had been unusually blunt and could reasonably have given the impression of impatience or frustration. As a result, he ruled that the matter should be sent back to a different Employment Judge to ensure fairness and a fresh start.
Takeaway Points
Tribunals are designed to accommodate regular people. Employers should keep this in mind and not abuse procedural weaknesses as a strategy.
While it’s understandable to want clarity in a claim, it’s important to avoid creating unnecessary procedural obstacles. A challenge to a claim should rest on its merit, not on minor technical defects.
Long and messy procedural histories deplete time, money, and patience. Proactive communication and efforts to clarify issues before hearings can save both sides a lot of grief. Sometimes, assisting the process rather than resisting every change makes for a better case.
This case shows that employment law is not just about legal boxes, it is about people. Employers who remember that will be better prepared for Tribunal claims.
If you or someone you know are dealing with a similar issue, please contact us for further assistance.
