Mr Martin Porter v The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland — 2018

Mr Martin Porter presented the claim on 8 September 2017 alleging protected disclosures and detriment. The respondent argued that the claim was barred by a compromise agreement signed in December 2012 and January 2013, and also that it was out of time. The tribunal noted that Mr Porter had previously pursued three Employment Tribunal claims concerning protected disclosures, detriment and disability discrimination, and that those claims were settled by a written agreement covering disability discrimination claims, claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 concerning protected disclosures, and any claim arising out of the 2012 tribunal proceedings.

The tribunal held that the compromise agreement was valid for the purposes of s.203 ERA 1996. It rejected the claimant’s arguments that the adviser was not independent, that the agreement was insufficiently specific, and that it could not cover future claims. The tribunal found that the agreement clearly referred to claims the claimant “had or may have” and specifically covered protected disclosure claims. It also accepted that the claimant and his legal representative knew, before the agreement was signed, about the issue of reinstatement or reimbursement of wages that later formed part of the present complaint.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant’s argument that he lacked mental capacity when he signed the agreement. It noted that the medical material before it did not address that issue directly and that there was no supporting medical evidence showing that he was unable to understand the effect of the agreement.

On limitation, the tribunal applied s.48 ERA 1996 and held that the key date was July 2016, when the claimant said he learned that information was missing. Because the claim was not presented until 8 September 2017, it was outside the three-month time limit. The tribunal found that the claimant had knowingly decided to delay presentation of the claim and therefore it had been reasonably practicable for him to bring it in time. The claim was therefore dismissed both because of the compromise agreement and because it was time-barred.