Thread by @JasonBraier

1/ Ijegede v Signature Senior Lifestyle Operations: trial ET erred in narrowing a list of issues set out in a PH order without finding 1 of the Serco v Wells factors applied.
bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT…
#ukemplaw

2/ This case concerned an ET claim, including for EqA breaches, brought by a LiP represented by his wife. The ET1 was sent with a "Grievance Document" intended to form part of the claim. It's unclear whether that was ever formally served on the Respondent.

3/ At a PH, an EJ went carefully through the list of issues, identifying in its order the totality of the claims & the relevant comparators. This included claims of scapegoating & being disciplined when white colleagues weren't for the same acts - claims in the Grievance Document

4/ At trial, the ET narrowed the claims, applying solely a hypothetical comparator & removing the scapegoating and differential treatment claims. It said that this was done by consent, though it's not really clear I's wife appreciated this. I lost his claim.

5/ I appealed on the basis that the ET erred in narrowing down the issues already identified in an ET order, & should only have done so if approached consistently with the guidance in Serco v Wells on the application of ET Rules r.29 re varying a previous case management order

6/ The EAT agreed that the ET had made this error. It also found no disparity b/w Serco & the CA decision in Mervyn v BW Controls that at the start trial the ET should consider whether any list of issues in a LiP case drawn up at PH reflected the significant issues in dispute.

7/ Although perhaps not the clearest explanation of how the 2 cases are consistent with each other, the EAT explained that Mervyn isn't specifically about the situation where (as here) the LoI was part of the PH Order, whilst also saying Serco doesn't impose a straitjacket.

8/ What the EAT appears to be saying is that an ET properly applying Mervyn will have an eye to whether it's a LoI to which the r.29 constraints on variation apply & that if it is then the guidance in Serco applies as to whether it's appropriate for the ET to amend the LoI.

9/ Here that exercise hadn't taken place & it appeared also that the ET may have failed to appreciate that the Grievance Document was part of I's claim (or at least intended claim). Hence the narrowing of issues had been procedurally erroneous & robbed I of part of his claim.