CA-2025-000379 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1357

The result of those conclusions is that I would hold that the EAT was wrong to find that the ET had jurisdiction to entertain the detriment claim as advanced in the original claim form, but that the ET nevertheless had jurisdiction to grant permission to amend to allow the Claimant to pursue the identical claim, and that in the particular circumstances of this case it was entitled to do so. The Claimant is thus entitled to pursue the detriment claim.

Because the EAT’s order was framed simply as dismissing the appeal from the ET, that result can straightforwardly be expressed as a dismissal of this appeal.

I agree.

I also agree.