Pauline Peace

Case Summary

This is an EAT appeal concerning procedural law and case management. The appeal concerns whether the Employment Tribunal erred in identifying complaints and factual disputes in a manner that effectively amended the claim form without properly applying the Selkent test for amendments, which requires balancing injustice and hardship to both parties if the amendment is allowed or refused. The EAT held the tribunal erred in law and remitted the matter for reconsideration with proper application of amendment principles.

The Employment Tribunal erred in law because when determining what was effectively an application to amend the claim, the Judge failed to properly balance the injustice or hardship that would be caused to the parties by allowing or refusing the amendment, and failed to apply the Selkent test or identify the key considerations necessary for an amendment decision (such as whether allegations were in the original claim form, the nature of the amendment, timing issues, time limits, and the relative injustice and hardship to both parties).

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in identifying factual disputes and complaints at a Preliminary Hearing for Case Management in a manner that constituted an amendment to the claim without properly considering injustice or hardship to the parties

Judgment approved by the court for handing down London Borough of Ealing & Ors v Peace © EAT 2026 Page 1 [2026] EAT 81 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 81 Case No: EA-2025-000780-RS EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL Date: 08 June 2026 Before: HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: London Borough of Ealing and others Appellant - and - Pauline Peace Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shahzad Ayub (instructed by Legal and Democratic Services London Borough of Ealing) for the Appellants Nancy Thomas (Litigation Friend) for the Respondent Hearing date: 28 May 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the court for handing down London Borough of Ealing & Ors v Peace © EAT 2026 Page 2 [2026] EAT 81 SUMMARY Practice and Procedure The Employment Tribunal erred in law when determining what was, in reality, an application to amend, by failing to properly balance the injustice or hardship which might be caused to the parties by the amendment being allowed or refused. Judgment approved by the court for handing down London Borough of Ealing & Ors v Peace © EAT 2026 Page 3 [2026] EAT 81 HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER: The issue 1. The issue in this appeal is whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in identifying the factual disputes and complaints in a claim at a Preliminary Hearing for Case Management in a manner that constituted an amendment to the claim, without properly considering the injustice or hardship that would be caused to either of the parties if the amendments were permitted or refused. The decision appealed 2. The appeal is against an order of Tribunal Judge Plowright, sitting as an Employment Judge, at a hearing on 22 April 2025. The order was sent to the pa…