Introduction
When you’re bringing a case to the Employment Tribunal, it’s easy to think every email and document you’ve sent will carry equal weight. But as this case shows, what really matters is the final written document the Judge has in front of them on the day.

What Happened in the Case
Mr Vessey had originally set out in an email that he wanted to add new claims — including harassment and reasonable adjustments. Later, with legal help, his representative prepared a “Note” for the hearing. That Note only included three claims: direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and indirect discrimination. And all of them were focused on his dismissal.

The Tribunal allowed those three claims — but not the others. Mr Vessey later argued that his earlier email should also count.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) disagreed.

“The Tribunal was entitled to treat the Note as the accurate and exhaustive statement of the claims sought to be added.”

In plain English: the Judge was allowed to rely only on the final Note, not on earlier drafts or emails. This is especially important at Case Managment Hearings ("CMH's") where the list of issues the tribunal will be asked to decide at teh Final Hearing are set and applications to amend are heard.

Why This Matters
If you’re representing yourself, this shows how vital it is to be clear and consistent about what claims you are pursuing. Once you put something in writing at a hearing — especially if it’s labelled as your “Note” or “Summary” — the Tribunal can and will treat it as final.

“The fact that the Note used the words ‘in summary’ could not rescue the appellant.”

That means if your Note leaves something out, it’s gone. The Tribunal isn’t obliged to dig back through emails to add it in.

Conclusion
This case is a reminder: the Tribunal works with the documents in front of it, not with what you hoped or thought you had included. Being precise, clear, and complete at each step protects your position down the line.

Sources
Mr Charles Vessey v Richmond Photography Ltd [2025] EAT 135
Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836
​