This case at the EAT re-iterates the considerations that apply when an application is made to amend an appeal at a rule 3(10) hearing (a hearing before a lone EAT Judge with only the Appellant present to try and get their appeal accepted in circumstances where it has been rejected during the sift as not disclosing an arguable point of law to base an appeal upon). In short, it appears the EAT will generally be prepared to grant leave to amend an appeal at a rule 3(10) hearing to allow the Appellant to run a stronger ground of appeal than originally pleaded, as long as the new argument is capable of disclosing an arguable point of law on which to base an appeal.

The EAT could not help effectively saying “told you so” to the Respondent when it sought to have leave to amend set aside – the EAT has commented previously that applying for this was unlikely to be worthwhile and when the Respondent’s application was dismissed, the EAT pointed this out and commented that it had resulted in further delay to achieving finality in the matter and an additional hearing for the Respondent to pay for.