Mr Godfrey Bwire v West Sussex County Council — 2023

The hearing on 25 July 2023 was listed to decide whether the claim should be struck out because the complaints were out of time. The tribunal identified two core events: a 2017 investigation in which Mr Bwire said his witness statement had been misrepresented, and a 2019 incident in which he said personal information about him had been shared and displayed. It also considered wider additional allegations advanced in later particulars and as an implied application to amend, but treated those separately from the original pleaded complaints.

For the Equality Act complaints, the tribunal applied the three-month time limit in s.123 Equality Act 2010, including the principles on conduct extending over a period and the possibility of a just and equitable extension. It found that Mr Bwire knew about the 2017 issue on 29 December 2017, so he should at least have begun early conciliation by 28 March 2018. Even taking the matter at its highest, the tribunal said the relevant period for employer inaction was measured in months, not years, and it saw no reasonable prospect of a tribunal extending time so far. The same approach was applied to the 2019 episode: on the claimant's own account he complained by email on 21 July 2019, but early conciliation did not begin until 1 March 2022, which the tribunal said was nearly 2 1/2 years too late.

The tribunal dealt with the Employment Rights Act complaint separately under s.111(2) ERA 1996 and the Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council formulation of 'not reasonably practicable'. It held that it would have been reasonably feasible for Mr Bwire to present the protected disclosure detriment claim within the ordinary three-month period, and it found no reasonable prospect of a different outcome. It therefore struck out the whole claim under rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. The amendment application was refused under the Selkent principles because the further allegations were broad and vague, no clear written amendment had been made, the specific new matter identified was also out of time, and the balance of prejudice favoured the respondent. The tribunal concluded that no remaining live complaints stayed in the proceedings.