Case 2201466/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Green v CBRE Managed Services Limited Heard remotely on CVP — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201466/2020
- Decision date
- 27 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Henderson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Green
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 22 July 2020, Employment Judge Henderson considered whether Ms D Green's whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims, lodged on 10 March 2020, were in time. The tribunal identified 17 January 2020 as the relevant deadline after early conciliation, and the issue was whether it had been reasonably practicable to present the claims by then and, if not, whether the claim form filed on 10 March 2020 was submitted within a further reasonable period.
The claimant relied on an ACAS email of 18 December 2019 and guidance on the CAB website, saying she understood she had "at least one month" and believed there was no final deadline. The tribunal did not accept that account as plausible or credible. It found that she should have read the full CAB guidance on time limits, and that even on her own evidence she received advice from ACAS on 21 January 2020 to submit a tribunal claim, but chose instead to spend time preparing fuller particulars.
The tribunal also rejected reliance on two later alleged detriments said to have occurred on 14 October and 17 November 2019. The 14 October incident was out of time in any event. The 17 November incident had not been pleaded as a separate detriment in the grounds or further particulars, and the tribunal found that the respondent's offer of new work did not amount to a detriment on the evidence given.
Applying the reasonably practicable test under sections 48(3) and 111(2) of the ERA 1996, and referring to Porter v Bandridge Ltd, Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea BC, Wall's Meat Co v Khan, and DHL Supply Chain Ltd v Fazackerley, the tribunal held that although it was arguable that the claimant had not yet had final confirmation from ACAS by 17 January 2020, it was not reasonable to wait until 10 March 2020. The claims were therefore out of time and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them, and the listed December 2020 final hearing was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Whistleblowing detriment claim under s.48(3) ERA 1996. The tribunal held the claim lodged on 10 March 2020 was out of time and that it was not reasonable for the claimant to wait beyond 21 January 2020 to present it; the attempted reliance on alleged detriments of 14 October and 17 November 2019 did not extend time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.111(2) ERA 1996 for protected disclosure. The tribunal held it was out of time, found no sufficient basis to extend time to 10 March 2020, and therefore said it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- reasonably practicable test
- s.48(3) ERA 1996
- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea BC
- Wall's Meat Co v Khan
- London International College v Dr RR Sen
- RBS v Theobold
- DHL Supply Chain Ltd v Fazackerley
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.