Capital Service Group Ltd

1 of 3 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr D Taylor Respondent: Capital Service Group Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard at: Reading (CVP) On: 17 February 2026 Before: First Tier Tribunal Judge Davison sitting as an Employment Judge Appearances For the claimant: In Person For the respondent: No attendance, or representation JUDGMENT 1. The claimant’s application to amend his claim to include a claim of constructive unfair dismissal is allowed. Reasons 1. The relevant background to the application to amend the claim can be summarised as follows. On 27 February 2025 an ET1 was received. The claim centred upon unpaid wages and expenses. On 13 March 2025 an application was made to include constructive unfair dismissal. On 15 April 2025 the claimant was notified the claim had been sent to the respondent for a response. A response was received on 17 June 2025, this asserted the appellant was not employed. On 17 July 2025 the parties were informed the application to amend would be addressed at the Preliminary Hearing. On 20 September 2025 the respondent wrote to the Tribunal stating; ‘Hi the company is in liquidation and has been since 22 July 2025.’ Consideration was given to possibly striking out the response, but the matter was listed for Preliminary Hearing on today’s date. 2. In the case of Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore [1996] ICR 836 the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) set out the test to be applied by a Tribunal in deciding whether to exercise its discretion to grant an amendment. It said the Tribunal should take into account all the circumstances and should balance the injustice and hardship of allowing the amendment against the injustice and hardship of refusing it. The EAT in Selkent also set out a list of factors which 2 of 3 are certainly relevant, which are usually referred to as the “Selkent factors”. In brief they are: (1) The ...