Mr Sundeep Sharm (in person) For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant was employed by ICT Infotech Ltd as a Lead Consultant from 28 June 2015 until 17 November 2021 and had been assigned to Santander from 28 June 2015 to 20 April 2021. He alleged public interest disclosure detriments arising from a telephone conversation on 23 February 2021 with Mr Anandram Kaipa, and relied on alleged detriments including the termination of his Santander assignment and access on 20 April 2021, comments in a grievance report on 30 June 2021, and a failure by his line manager from 20 April 2021 to speak to him or respond to correspondence.

The tribunal held that the public interest disclosure detriment complaint was out of time. It found that the latest alleged detriment was 30 June 2021, so the complaint had to be brought by 30 September 2021, but the claim form was not presented until 12 March 2022. The claimant did not show that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary limitation period, or that the period up to March 2022 was a reasonable further period. The tribunal said the claimant's explanation, including reference to waiting for the grievance outcome, not seeking legal advice, stress and anxiety, heart problems, and his wife being away in February 2022, did not meet the statutory threshold.

The claimant also sought to amend the case to add a bonus detriment said to be worth about £500, a detriment based on delay in sending his P45 until 14 December 2021, and a wrongful dismissal claim for one month's notice pay. All of those amendment applications were refused under Selkent. The bonus point was treated as a new and significantly out-of-time complaint; the P45 point was also out of time and would have required a new factual enquiry; and the wrongful dismissal amendment was refused as significantly out of time and poorly particularised, with the tribunal noting issues about notice, the period when the claimant was at home on full pay from 20 April to 17 November 2021, and the possibility of concurrent employment.

On the respondent's strike-out application, the tribunal struck out the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996. It applied the high threshold for strike out and, citing Ezsias and Kilraine, held that even if the claimant had said the words relied on to Mr Kaipa, there was no reasonable prospect that they would amount to a disclosure of information within s.43B(1). The separate ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.94 ERA 1996 was not determined at this hearing and was said to proceed.