Mr D Stephenson, counsel For the v Respondent — 2025

This was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge S Moore sitting alone. The issue was whether the claimant’s whistleblowing detriment claim had been brought in time. The Tribunal held that the last pleaded act of detriment was 18 October 2023 and, allowing for ACAS Early Conciliation, the primary time limit expired at the latest on 21 January 2024.

The claimant argued that it was not reasonably practicable to present a valid claim within time because she did not learn until 7 February 2024 that the claim form had been rejected. The Tribunal accepted that she was a litigant in person, that the claim was unusual because she had not been dismissed but said she had been demoted, and that the form did not make clear which box to tick for whistleblowing. However, it held that the relevant question was whether it was reasonably practicable to present a valid claim form within the limitation period, not whether any defect could be rectified later.

Applying the approach in Wall’s Meat Co Ltd v Khan and section 48(3) ERA 1996, the Tribunal found that the claim form did not even set out, in lay terms, the factual basis of a whistleblowing detriment claim. It also noted that the claimant had previously instructed solicitors, had received legal advice until August 2023, and had union support when the form was submitted. In those circumstances, the Tribunal considered it reasonable to expect her to set out the basis of the claim properly or seek further advice if unsure.

The Tribunal acknowledged some sympathy for the claimant, including the delay in dealing with her reconsideration application and uncertainty about whether Employment Judge Young had seen her 3 January 2024 email. It nevertheless concluded that the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim by 21 January 2024. The claim was therefore out of time and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it.