Case 3200075/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Sriramaiah v Visa Embassy Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200075/2024
- Decision date
- 30 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Sriramaiah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant's whistleblowing detriment claim was out of time under section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The last alleged detriment was said to have occurred on 2 February 2023, the claimant started ACAS early conciliation on 10 November 2023, and she presented her ET1 on 10 January 2024. Applying the reasonably practicable test and the authorities cited in the judgment, including Palmer, Dedman and Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan, the judge rejected the claimant's explanations based on ignorance of the tribunal process, alleged illness, her father's illness, fear of retaliation and the need to remain in work. The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable to have brought the claim in time and struck it out for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claim of detriment because the claimant made a protected disclosure was presented out of time. The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to present it in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal refused an oral application to amend to add 13 age discrimination allegations. It then stated that the claimant's age discrimination claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.48 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
- Selkent factors
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster plc
- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
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.