Case 3310243/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Adam Ross, Solicitor — 2023
- Case reference
- 3310243/2022
- Decision date
- 3 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's whistleblowing complaints, described as detriments contrary to section 47B ERA 1996 and automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A ERA 1996, because the claim had been presented out of time. It found that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider those complaints since it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the primary time limit.
The judgment also recorded that there was no separate breach of contract claim by the claimant. It added that, had such a complaint been pursued in the claim form, the tribunal would have had no jurisdiction to consider it for the same reason, namely that it was presented out of time when it was reasonably practicable to present it within the primary limitation period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claimant's complaints under sections 47B, 48, 103A and 111 ERA 1996 were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented within the primary time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.