Mr M Henson v Treasure Transport Services Limited — 2025

At the preliminary hearing on 1 September 2025, Employment Judge Ost sitting alone identified three complaints in the claimant's ET1: unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, and a further poorly defined claim. The tribunal concluded that the third claim was not simply a repetition of the county court personal injury claim; rather, it was a standalone claim about alleged inaccuracies in the RIDDOR report and accident book, with the claimant saying those matters had caused depression and anxiety.

The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal and whistleblowing complaints were out of time. The claimant's employment ended on 23 October 2023 and the ET claim was presented on 7 April 2025, long after the primary three-month limits under s.111(2) ERA 1996 and s.48(3) ERA 1996. Although the tribunal accepted that the claimant had mental health difficulties and had pursued a county court injury claim in the same broad period, it found no reasonable prospect of persuading a tribunal that it was not reasonably practicable to bring the ET claims in time, or that the later presentation was within a reasonable further period.

Applying rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and the authorities cited in the judgment, the tribunal struck out the whole claim and dismissed it. It also held that any standalone personal injury claim in the ET1 had no reasonable prospect of success because the Employment Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over such a claim. The respondent's alternative argument that the third claim duplicated the Lincoln County Court claim was rejected, because the county court particulars did not include the RIDDOR or accident-book dispute. The tribunal said that, had it not already struck out the claim, it would have considered a deposit order of £400, but no deposit order was made.