In person For the v Respondent — 2021

This was a preliminary hearing about limitation and protected public interest disclosures. The claimant, Ms Deborah Conn, worked for the respondent Oaklands Residential Care Limited for about seven weeks between 19 March 2020 and 4 May 2020. She said she had made a series of protected disclosures about resident care, PPE shortages and related matters, and she brought claims for unfair dismissal and detriment under the public interest disclosure provisions.

The tribunal held that both claims were presented out of time. It found that, even on the later date used in the limitation calculation, the unfair dismissal time limit expired on 3 August 2020 and the detriment time limit expired on 20 August 2020, whereas the claimant did not start ACAS early conciliation until 28 August 2020 and presented her claim on 1 September 2020. Because the normal time limits had already expired before ACAS was contacted, the claimant did not gain an extension under section 207B.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's explanation that Covid-related symptoms prevented her from issuing proceedings in time. It found there was no medical evidence that she was disabled from bringing the claims within the limitation period, and it relied on the fact that she was able to write detailed emails, including her appeal and messages to her MP, within the relevant period. It also rejected her later point that she delayed because she wanted further evidence from the respondent; that was not treated as a reason why issuing proceedings was not reasonably practicable.

Applying the statutory time limit provisions and the authorities it cited, the tribunal concluded that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring both claims within time and that she had not done so. The judgment therefore dismissed both the unfair dismissal claim and the detriment claim.