Case 2303300/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2303300/2019
- Decision date
- 30 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyde Dated
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing about limitation. The claimant, who had been employed by the respondent since October 1969 and remained employed as a Trains Manager, said she made whistleblowing disclosures in a grievance email on 27 April 2018. The respondent told her in December 2018 that no further action would be taken, following meetings with Mr Boots, and the tribunal treated 20 December 2018 as the latest date by which she knew the grievance would not be investigated.
The claimant later wrote to the new Managing Director on 12 March 2019, but the tribunal found that this did not restart time. The tribunal held that the relevant decision had already been communicated by 20 December 2018, so the three-month time limit expired on 19 March 2019. The claim form was presented on 18 August 2019, after the limitation period had expired, and early conciliation did not extend time because it was started too late. Applying the question whether it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time, the tribunal found there was nothing to show that it was not reasonably practicable to do so and struck the claim out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal struck out the claim because it was presented out of time and the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to determine it. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.48 ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable test
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.