in person v Mr French-Williams — 2018

The tribunal dismissed the claimant's public interest disclosure detriment claim in case 1405457/2020 as out of time. The primary limitation period expired on 30 October 2019, the ACAS early conciliation dates were both 14 November 2019, and the claim was not presented until 10 October 2020. The claimant said he delayed because of internal processes linked to Dr van den Anker and hoped for reinstatement, but the tribunal found there was no impediment to issuing the claim within time, especially because he had already lodged another Employment Tribunal claim in August 2019 and High Court proceedings in February 2020.

Applying the authorities it identified, including Porter v Bandbridge, Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances, Asda Stores v Krause, and Johnson v Gore Wood and Co, the tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable to present the detriment claim within the primary time limit. The judge also said that, if the claim had not been time-barred, it would have been struck out as an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson because the claimant had chosen to advance other proceedings arising out of the same underlying events while leaving this claim until much later.

The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend claim 1403339/2019 to add a s145B TULR(C)A 1992 claim. It held that the proposed claim was bound to fail because the offer of a different contract to an individual employee after expiry of a fixed-term contract did not engage the collective bargaining provisions relied on, and it also recorded that the application was out of time.

The tribunal also refused the claimant's application to amend claim 1400283/2018 to restore a victimisation claim under s27 Equality Act 2010. It held that a claim already dismissed could not be restored by amendment, and that reconsideration or appeal would have been the proper route. Separately, it refused two preparation time orders and a deposit order sought in relation to claim 1400615/2019, finding there was no sufficient basis for either order and that a single HR email was not enough to show the response had little reasonable prospect of success. No monetary remedy was awarded.