Case 1600413/2023 · Employment Tribunal

IN PERSON FOR THE v Respondent — 2024

Case reference: 1600413/2023
Decision date: 17 June 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Panel members: Mrs M Humphries, Mr W Horne

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

IN PERSON FOR THE

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal considered complaints of detriment for making protected disclosures. It held that the complaints said to have occurred before 15 September 2022 were not presented within the required three month time limit. The Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for those complaints to have been brought in time, so they were out of time and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine them.

Those earlier complaints were therefore struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. The complaints of detriment said to have occurred after 15 September 2022 were considered on their merits, but the Tribunal found they were not made out and dismissed them. No monetary remedy was recorded in the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	Complaints of detriment for making protected disclosures alleged to have occurred before 15 September 2022 were out of time. The Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented within the three month time limit, so it had no jurisdiction to determine them and struck them out for having no reasonable prospects of success.	Struck out	—	—
Whistleblowing	Complaints of detriment for making protected disclosures alleged to have occurred after 15 September 2022 were not made out and were dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.