Lorraine Parkinson v Lee Filters (a division of Panavision Europe Limited) and 3 others — 2019

The Claimant brought a detriment claim based on protected disclosures. The tribunal treated the first category of detriments in the Scott Schedule as ending, at the latest, on 19 February 2018, when the Claimant submitted her grievance. ACAS was notified on 30 May 2018, so that part of the claim was out of time unless the tribunal was satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable to present it earlier.

Applying the time-limit provisions in ERA 1996, ss. 48(3) and 48(4), the tribunal accepted that the Claimant had some health difficulties and was taking antidepressant medication, but it found that ill-health was not the principal reason for the delay. The tribunal relied on the fact that the Claimant had drafted a detailed grievance letter herself on 19 February 2018, cited legal authority, knew there was a time limit, and was capable of researching the position or instructing a lawyer. It was not persuaded that it had not been reasonably practicable for her to commence proceedings in time.

On that basis, the allegations of detriment in the first category were dismissed as outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The tribunal noted that the second and third categories of detriment were accepted as being in time, but those issues were not decided at this hearing and were deferred to a further preliminary hearing. The applications concerning the respondents and the counterclaim were also dealt with separately, with Lee Filters, Mr Allen and Mr Furssedown removed as parties and the counterclaim issues left for later determination or said to have been resolved in part.