Hudson Business Centres Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant appealed a case management decision refusing her application to amend her disability discrimination claim to include direct discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. The EAT held that the claimant's paper apart to the ET1, read fairly and in context, contained sufficient factual averments to support a claim for direct discrimination based on her dyslexia, and that no formal amendment was required as the claim was already extant on the pleadings.

The tribunal erred in concluding there were no facts capable of being relabelled to constitute a direct disability discrimination claim. The language in the claimant's paper apart, particularly 'I suspect MD harboured some concerns about my dyslexia condition, which is officially a disability', when read fairly and in context as a party litigant's pleading, was capable of supporting a claim for direct discrimination under section 13 in addition to the recognized claim under section 15, and therefore no amendment was required.

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 refusing the claimant's application to amend her claim to include a claim for direct discrimination on the ground of disability under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010
• •Whether the claimant's paper apart to the ET1 contained sufficient factual averments to support a claim for direct discrimination on the ground of disability
• •Proper interpretation of pleadings by a party litigant, including use of tentative language

© EAT 2023 Judgment approved by the court for handing down Jeffcoat v Hudson Business Centres Ltd © EAT 2026 Page 1 [2026] EAT 91 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 91 Case No: EA-2022-SCO-000023-DT EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL 52 Melville Street Edinburgh, EH3 7HF Date: 16 June 2026 Before: THE HONOURABLE LADY HALDANE Between: MISS CLAIRE JEFFCOAT Appellant - and – HUDSON BUSINESS CENTRES LTD Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr Rad Kohanzad for the Appellant Mr Neill MacDougall (instructed by Jackson Boyd LLP) for the Respondent Hearing date: 5 May 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT © EAT 2023 Judgment approved by the court for handing down Jeffcoat v Hudson Business Centres Ltd © EAT 2026 Page 2 [2026] EAT 91 SUMMARY Practice and Procedure; Pleadings; Disability discrimination Did the ET fall into error in not regarding the claimant’s paper apart to her ET1 as habile to include a claim for direct, as well as indirect discrimination? Cox v Adeco & Others UKEAT/0339/19/AT considered and applied. The EAT concluded that, read fairly and having regard to the whole circumstances, the claimant’s pleadings were apt to encompass a claim for direct as well as indirect discrimination under ss 13 and 15 EqA 2010. Accordingly, the ET had erred in refusing a claim to amend/relabel the existing claim to include a claim under s 13. Further, amendment was not required in respect of a claim that was already, read fairly, extant on the face of the pleadings. Having regard to the error identified, this was not a situation where more than one outcome was possible (Jafri v Lincoln College [2014] EWCA Civ 449, per Underhill LJ) and decision of the EAT substituted for that of the ET accordingly. Matter remitted to the ET for further procedure. © EAT 2023 Judgment approved by the co…