In person For the v Respondent — 2024

At the open preliminary hearing on 19 July 2024, Employment Judge Alliott considered time limitation and strike-out issues arising from Mr Alvin Sawyer's claim against Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The tribunal found that the primary three-month time limit expired on 31 August 2023 and that the claim form presented on 18 October 2023 was therefore out of time on its face.

The tribunal held, however, that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within time. It accepted that he had been trying to submit the ET1 online before the deadline, that the online system was unable to accept ET1s for about six days, and that he emailed the tribunal on 30 August 2023 after being unable to submit online. The tribunal found that an email submission would not normally be effective, but that the claimant, as a litigant in person, could have been told to send it by email and that it was not reasonable to expect him to print and post or hand-deliver the claim instead.

The tribunal also found that the claim was presented within a reasonable further period after the limitation period expired. It accepted evidence from the ET1 processing team that the emailed claim was only rejected later, that the claimant became aware around 13 October 2023, telephoned the tribunal on 17 October 2023, and re-presented the claim the next day. On that basis, jurisdiction to hear the claim was retained.

On the respondent's strike out/deposit order application, the tribunal considered four alleged protected disclosures said to be contained in a March 2023 document. Applying the Kilraine approach to qualifying disclosures and rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules, it held that items 1, 2 and 4/5 could potentially tend to show an endangerment to health or safety and should not be struck out at this stage. Item 3, concerning "unnecessary enquiries for blood test results" and the suggestion that better systems would avoid them, was struck out because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of showing a qualifying disclosure. No remedy was awarded at this preliminary hearing.