In person For the v Mr D.E. - Director of the First Respondent and husband of the Second Respondent — 2020

The claimant worked as a live-in nanny from 14 November 2016 until 23 June 2017. She alleged that she was dismissed because of protected disclosures to the NSPCC in March and May 2017, and that she later suffered post-employment detriments after a letter from Mr D.E. to Mrs Griffiths was disclosed to her in October 2018. She also advanced claims framed as sex discrimination, race discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and underpayment of the national minimum wage.

The tribunal held that the October 2018 letter gave the claimant enough information to know the essential basis of the whistleblowing and victimisation complaints, including that the respondents had referred to the police visit, the termination of employment, and the subsequent correspondence with Mrs Griffiths. It found that she also knew the facts underlying the in-employment sex and race allegations when they occurred, and that she had no satisfactory explanation for waiting until ACAS contact on 11 November 2019. In doing so, it applied the statutory time-limit tests for the ERA claims and the Equality Act 2010 "just and equitable" discretion, referring to authorities including Walls Meat Co Ltd v Khan, British Coal Corporation v Keeble, Robertson v Bexley Community Services, and Anyanwu v South Bank University.

The tribunal struck out the ERA and Equality Act claims under rule 37. It held that the protected-disclosure detriment claim, the automatic unfair dismissal claim, the NMW underpayment complaint, the sex discrimination claim, the race discrimination claim, the harassment claim, and the victimisation claim were all out of time. On the NMW issue, it noted that HMRC had already made an award of £52.72 on 30 April 2019, which the respondents said had been satisfied, but the tribunal did not determine any separate monetary remedy. It also stated that it had no jurisdiction over Data Protection Act 2018 or Human Rights Act 1998 complaints and did not need to consider the amendment application.