April 29, 2026
The Claimant, brought proceedings against the Respondent arising out of her dismissal from employment. Her first claim, presented on 4 June 2025, advanced complaints of unfair dismissal, redundancy and flexible working. Notably, when completing the claim form, the Claimant expressly indicated that the dispute did not involve work related discrimination.
While those proceedings were ongoing and before any substantive case management hearing had taken place, the Claimant issued a second claim in October 2025. The second claim arose out of the same dismissal but advanced discrimination allegations on grounds of sex and/or age, said to have become apparent during the summer of 2025. The Respondent applied to strike out the second claim as an abuse of process, contending that any additional complaints should have been pursued within the existing proceedings by way of amendment rather than separate action.
The Tribunal accepted that the discrimination allegations had crystallised after the presentation of the first claim. However, it found that this occurred before the effective date of termination and at a stage when the first claim remained at an early procedural phase. An application to amend would have been straightforward and would not have caused procedural unfairness or delay. The Tribunal rejected the suggestion that claimants have a free standing right to issue new proceedings simply because matters arise after a claim has been filed.
The Tribunal emphasised that the abuse of process doctrine is directed at preventing unfair, oppressive or duplicative litigation. The test is a pragmatic one, focusing on whether it was reasonable and proportionate to expect the claimant to advance the further allegations within the existing proceedings. Here, the claims arose from the same factual matrix, involved the same parties, and would have depended on overlapping evidence.
In those circumstances, the Tribunal held that issuing a second claim amounted to impermissible duplication and fragmentation of proceedings. The second claim was therefore struck out in its entirety as an abuse of process.
The decision serves as a clear warning to claimants and advisers in Tribunal proceedings that attempts to re cast or expand disputes by issuing fresh claims will be closely scrutinised. Where new allegations emerge during the currency of existing proceedings, the Tribunal will ordinarily expect those matters to be pursued by amendment. Failure to do so risks outright dismissal, regardless of the underlying merits.
The Claimant, brought proceedings against the Respondent arising out of her dismissal from employment. Her first claim, presented on 4 June 2025, advanced complaints of unfair dismissal, redundancy and flexible working. Notably, when completing the claim form, the Claimant expressly indicated that the dispute did not involve work related discrimination.
While those proceedings were ongoing and before any substantive case management hearing had taken place, the Claimant issued a second claim in October 2025. The second claim arose out of the same dismissal but advanced discrimination allegations on grounds of sex and/or age, said to have become apparent during the summer of 2025. The Respondent applied to strike out the second claim as an abuse of process, contending that any additional complaints should have been pursued within the existing proceedings by way of amendment rather than separate action.
The Tribunal accepted that the discrimination allegations had crystallised after the presentation of the first claim. However, it found that this occurred before the effective date of termination and at a stage when the first claim remained at an early procedural phase. An application to amend would have been straightforward and would not have caused procedural unfairness or delay. The Tribunal rejected the suggestion that claimants have a free standing right to issue new proceedings simply because matters arise after a claim has been filed.
The Tribunal emphasised that the abuse of process doctrine is directed at preventing unfair, oppressive or duplicative litigation. The test is a pragmatic one, focusing on whether it was reasonable and proportionate to expect the claimant to advance the further allegations within the existing proceedings. Here, the claims arose from the same factual matrix, involved the same parties, and would have depended on overlapping evidence.
In those circumstances, the Tribunal held that issuing a second claim amounted to impermissible duplication and fragmentation of proceedings. The second claim was therefore struck out in its entirety as an abuse of process.
The decision serves as a clear warning to claimants and advisers in Tribunal proceedings that attempts to re cast or expand disputes by issuing fresh claims will be closely scrutinised. Where new allegations emerge during the currency of existing proceedings, the Tribunal will ordinarily expect those matters to be pursued by amendment. Failure to do so risks outright dismissal, regardless of the underlying merits.
The Claimant, brought proceedings against the Respondent arising out of her dismissal from employment. Her first claim, presented on 4 June 2025, advanced complaints of unfair dismissal, redundancy and flexible working. Notably, when completing the claim form, the Claimant expressly indicated that the dispute did not involve work related discrimination.
While those proceedings were ongoing and before any substantive case management hearing had taken place, the Claimant issued a second claim in October 2025. The second claim arose out of the same dismissal but advanced discrimination allegations on grounds of sex and/or age, said to have become apparent during the summer of 2025. The Respondent applied to strike out the second claim as an abuse of process, contending that any additional complaints should have been pursued within the existing proceedings by way of amendment rather than separate action.
The Tribunal accepted that the discrimination allegations had crystallised after the presentation of the first claim. However, it found that this occurred before the effective date of termination and at a stage when the first claim remained at an early procedural phase. An application to amend would have been straightforward and would not have caused procedural unfairness or delay. The Tribunal rejected the suggestion that claimants have a free standing right to issue new proceedings simply because matters arise after a claim has been filed.
The Tribunal emphasised that the abuse of process doctrine is directed at preventing unfair, oppressive or duplicative litigation. The test is a pragmatic one, focusing on whether it was reasonable and proportionate to expect the claimant to advance the further allegations within the existing proceedings. Here, the claims arose from the same factual matrix, involved the same parties, and would have depended on overlapping evidence.
In those circumstances, the Tribunal held that issuing a second claim amounted to impermissible duplication and fragmentation of proceedings. The second claim was therefore struck out in its entirety as an abuse of process.
The decision serves as a clear warning to claimants and advisers in Tribunal proceedings that attempts to re cast or expand disputes by issuing fresh claims will be closely scrutinised. Where new allegations emerge during the currency of existing proceedings, the Tribunal will ordinarily expect those matters to be pursued by amendment. Failure to do so risks outright dismissal, regardless of the underlying merits.
The Claimant, brought proceedings against the Respondent arising out of her dismissal from employment. Her first claim, presented on 4 June 2025, advanced complaints of unfair dismissal, redundancy and flexible working. Notably, when completing the claim form, the Claimant expressly indicated that the dispute did not involve work related discrimination.
While those proceedings were ongoing and before any substantive case management hearing had taken place, the Claimant issued a second claim in October 2025. The second claim arose out of the same dismissal but advanced discrimination allegations on grounds of sex and/or age, said to have become apparent during the summer of 2025. The Respondent applied to strike out the second claim as an abuse of process, contending that any additional complaints should have been pursued within the existing proceedings by way of amendment rather than separate action.
The Tribunal accepted that the discrimination allegations had crystallised after the presentation of the first claim. However, it found that this occurred before the effective date of termination and at a stage when the first claim remained at an early procedural phase. An application to amend would have been straightforward and would not have caused procedural unfairness or delay. The Tribunal rejected the suggestion that claimants have a free standing right to issue new proceedings simply because matters arise after a claim has been filed.
The Tribunal emphasised that the abuse of process doctrine is directed at preventing unfair, oppressive or duplicative litigation. The test is a pragmatic one, focusing on whether it was reasonable and proportionate to expect the claimant to advance the further allegations within the existing proceedings. Here, the claims arose from the same factual matrix, involved the same parties, and would have depended on overlapping evidence.
In those circumstances, the Tribunal held that issuing a second claim amounted to impermissible duplication and fragmentation of proceedings. The second claim was therefore struck out in its entirety as an abuse of process.
The decision serves as a clear warning to claimants and advisers in Tribunal proceedings that attempts to re cast or expand disputes by issuing fresh claims will be closely scrutinised. Where new allegations emerge during the currency of existing proceedings, the Tribunal will ordinarily expect those matters to be pursued by amendment. Failure to do so risks outright dismissal, regardless of the underlying merits.