Case 4113670/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Brown v The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland — 2020
- Case reference
- 4113670/2019
- Decision date
- 16 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Brown
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a public interest disclosure detriment claim arising from an alleged detriment on 30 August 2019. The tribunal held that the relevant three-month time limit expired on 29 November 2019. Although the claim form was first lodged on 28 November 2019, it was rejected on 6 December 2019 because the claimant had not completed ACAS early conciliation. He obtained an early conciliation certificate dated 16 December 2019 and resubmitted the ET1 on 18 December 2019, which was treated as the date of presentation.
The only issue at the preliminary hearing was whether it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time under section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal referred to the reasonable practicability authorities, including Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy, and accepted that the claimant was aware of tribunal time limits, had previously pursued a similar public interest disclosure claim since 2014, and had previously completed the early conciliation process. It also relied on the online and form guidance that directed claimants to contact ACAS before presenting a claim.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's argument that he had believed the tribunal would notify ACAS under rule 93 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. It held that any misunderstanding about the ACAS early conciliation requirement was not reasonable in the circumstances, because the guidance was available to him and he had not consulted it. The tribunal noted that he had left the claim until the last minute and that the risk of error in those circumstances lay with the claimant.
Because the tribunal was not satisfied on the first limb of the reasonable practicability test, it did not need to decide whether the eventual presentation on 18 December 2019 was within a reasonable time, although it recorded that the claimant moved quickly once the defect was identified. The claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Public interest disclosure detriment claim dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the tribunal held it was presented out of time and that it was not reasonably practicable to lodge it in time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.48 ERA 1996
- reasonable practicability test
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy
- Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
- Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Sodexo Health Care Services Limited v Harmer
- Cranwell v Cullen
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.