The Chambers of Mr Martin Porter, KC, 2 Temple Gardens and others

Case Summary

The Appellant made a number of applications to the Employment Tribunal for case management orders. Two of the applications were to amend his Particulars of Claim. Despite the first of those applications being unopposed by Leading Counsel appearing for the Respondents, the Employment Judge engaged in a lengthy debate with the Claimant about the amendment and imposed conditions on its grant which had not been argued for or suggested by the Respondent. The second application to amend was determined against the Claimant but on grounds which again, had not been argued by the Respondents and which had not been the subject of discussion at the hearing. A third application (for an order that the Respondent reply to a Request for Further Information) was also rejected on the basis that this was excessive – and again, this was not an argument that had been advanced by the Respondents. The EJ had wrongly exercised his discretion in relation to the two applications by the Claimant that he had rejected and, taking his conduct as a whole, it was sufficient to amount to apparent bias.

The Employment Judge exercised his discretion wrongly in relation to case management applications by imposing conditions not argued by the Respondent, rejecting amendments on grounds not advanced by either party, and rejecting a request for further information on a basis not argued by the Respondents, which cumulatively amounted to apparent bias.

• •Practice and Procedure

Judgment approved by the court for handing down D Matovu v The Chambers of Mr Martin Porter KC & Ors © EAT 2026 Page 1 [2026] EAT 36 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 36 Case No: EA-2025-000211-NK EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 5 March 2026 Before : BRUCE CARR KC DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : MR DANIEL MATOVU Appellant - and – THE CHAMBERS OF MR MARTIN PORTER KC, 2 TEMPLE GARDENS AND OTHERS Respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Daniel Matovu the Appellant in person Christian Davies (instructed by Farrer & Co LLP) for the Respondent Hearing date: 29 October 2025 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the court for handing down D Matovu v The Chambers of Mr Martin Porter KC & Ors © EAT 2026 Page 2 [2026] EAT 36 SUMMARY Practice and Procedure The Appellant made a number of applications to the Employment Tribunal for case management orders. Two of the applications were to amend his Particulars of Claim. Despite the first of those applications being unopposed by Leading Counsel appearing for the Respondents, the Employment Judge engaged in a lengthy debate with the Claimant about the amendment and imposed conditions on its grant which had not been argued for or suggested by the Respondent. The second application to amend was determined against the Claimant but on grounds which again, had not been argued by the Respondents and which had not been the subject of discussion at the hearing. A third application (for an order that the Respondent reply to a Request for Further Information) was also rejected on the basis that this was excessive – and again, this was not an argument that had been advanced by the Respondents. The EJ had wrongly exercised his discretion in rel…