The Employment Tribunal merry go round

Initial claims are problematic enough but what is the position with second and subsequent claims dealing with the same sort of complaint?

In Szucs v GreenSquareAccord Ltd [2025] EAT 110 the EAT gave some guidance.

The Claimant issued a victimisation (unfair dismissal) claim against the Respondent.  Before that claim could be heard, the Claimant applied unsuccessfully for a number of new roles with the Respondent  – strange given the circumstances of his dismissal.

The victimisation claim was subsequently dismissed but the Claimant went on to raise a further claim related to his unsuccessful job applications. The second claim was struck out as an abuse of process following the dicta in Henderson v Henderson (which prevents parties from bringing fresh proceedings about a matter which could and should have been litigated in earlier proceedings). The Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant could, and should, have applied to amend his first claim to include the allegations that formed the subject of the second claim.

On an unsuccessful appeal to the EAT it was held that the rule can be relied on in relation to any matter that could, and should, have been brought as part of the first claim up to the date of the hearing in that claim (ref: London Borough of Haringey v O’Brien EAT 0004/16).

Key point: Frequent flyers be aware that amendment of an existing claim (that has not yet reached trial) now appears to be the preferred course of action – rather than issuing a second claim.