Case 6000156/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Burles v London North Eastern Railway Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 6000156/2022
- Decision date
- 18 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Burles
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints against London North Eastern Railway Limited alleging protected disclosure detriments under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and unfair dismissal under Part X of the 1996 Act.
Employment Judge Brain held that the protected disclosure detriment complaints were presented outside the time limit in section 48 of the 1996 Act, and that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim in time. The unfair dismissal complaints were also held to have been presented outside the section 111 time limit, where it was reasonably practicable to have presented them in time.
On that basis, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant's complaints. No remedy or monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaints of protected disclosure detriment under section 47B ERA 1996 were found to have been presented outside the section 48 time limit where it was reasonably practicable to present them in time; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider them. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaints under Part X ERA 1996 were found to have been presented outside the section 111 time limit where it was reasonably practicable to present them in time; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider them. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.