UK · EATCourt order
EAT: tribunals may refuse bare amendment applications without inviting clarification
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held in F v King’s College London [2026] EAT 146 that an employment tribunal did not err by refusing a poorly particularised amendment application and was not obliged to invite clarification first, Solicitors Journal reported on September 24, 2026. HHJ Auerbach said clarification is an option, not a mandatory first step, and lack of particulars identifying protected disclosures and detriments justified refusal.
Key points
- EAT dismissed appeals in F v King’s College London [2026] EAT 146 on amendment refusal.Solicitors Journal
- HHJ Auerbach held tribunals need not invite clarification before refusing bare amendments.Solicitors Journal
- Allow, refuse or clarify remain options; clarification is not a required first step.Solicitors Journal
- The whistleblowing amendment lacked particulars of disclosures and alleged detriments.Solicitors Journal
- Lack of particulars alone justified refusing the amendment and reconsideration.Solicitors Journal