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

Fecha: 27-Oct-2025

THE APPELLANTS’ CHALLENGE

82.

The Appellants’ case on this issue was developed in a supplementary skeleton argument and in oral submissions. Mr Baker’s submissions fell essentially into two parts:

(1)

He submits that section 18A (1) on its true construction applies to the raising of new claims by way of amendment to existing proceedings as well as to the commencement of new proceedings. If that is right, the conclusion reached in relation to the appeal – that is, that the ET had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim because the Claimant did not have an ECC – applies equally to the proposed amendment.

(2)

He submits that even if section 18A (1) does not apply as such to claims sought to be introduced by amendment it is nevertheless wrong in principle to allow such an amendment because it would be contrary to the purpose of the early conciliation provisions.

83.

I will consider those submissions in turn. Mr Baker did not explicitly challenge Judge Crosfill’s exercise of his discretion to grant permission to amend in the present case, as summarised at para. 81 above: his case was that for the reasons given above he should not have embarked on that exercise in the first place. I will, however, briefly consider that question also.