In person For the Second v Respondent — 2022

At a preliminary hearing on 25 July 2022, the tribunal considered the claimant's sole claim against Magnox Ltd under s.47B ERA 1996 for detriment arising from protected public interest disclosures. The alleged detriment was the second respondent's request that he be removed from its Winfrith site, first confirmed on 27 January 2021 and then in the first respondent's letter of 26 February 2021. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had raised health and safety concerns between 2019 and early 2021, but the issue for determination was limitation: the ordinary three-month time limit expired at midnight on 1 November 2021, before the claimant contacted ACAS on 22 December 2021 and before he presented proceedings on 9 February 2022.

Applying the 'reasonably practicable' test under s.48(3) ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited, the tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. The claimant had access to advice and assistance from Unite and to the internet, was not prevented by illness, was not misled by the respondents, and was able to pursue grievances and attend redeployment meetings during the relevant period. The tribunal rejected his explanation that he did not know he could bring the claim until after his later dismissal.

The tribunal also considered that even if the second respondent's confirmation on 2 August 2021 was treated as a further detriment restarting time, the claim still should have been brought within three months of that date. It held that the claimant had not shown that he could not reasonably have presented the complaint in time, and dismissed the claim against the second respondent. The second respondent was accordingly removed from the proceedings.