Mr Alex A Hughes v Somerset NHS Foundation Trust — 2025

This reserved judgment, heard by video on 2 May 2025 before Employment Judge Gray, concerned time limits only. Mr Alex A Hughes brought complaints against Somerset NHS Foundation Trust for breach of contract and detriment for public interest disclosure, and later obtained an amendment to include victimisation under the Equality Act 2010. The case arose against the background of a Settlement Agreement dated 8 December 2022, signed by the claimant on 15 December 2022, and alleged complaints made to the NMC and BABCP around that period.

The tribunal found that the claimant became aware of the NMC complaint around 22 December 2022 and knew by 13 February 2023 that it was not from a patient. He became aware of the BABCP complaint in February 2023 and understood by 24 April 2023 that it would not proceed further. He wrote to the Employment Tribunal on 1 March 2023 asking whether the agreement had been breached, and later sought information from the respondent; the requested information was ready on 22 November 2023 and collected on 27 November 2023. The claim form was presented on 21 February 2024.

Applying section 48(3)(b) ERA 1996 and regulation 7 of the Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994, and referring to Dedman, Palmer, Pearce and Cullinane, the tribunal held that the breach of contract and whistleblowing complaints were out of time. It accepted the claimant's evidence that he had been trying to follow advice from ACAS and the RCN and to obtain further information, but held that once the information had been obtained it would have been reasonable to present the claim then, and that waiting nearly three months was not within a reasonable further period.

For the victimisation complaint, the tribunal applied the just and equitable discretion under section 123 Equality Act 2010, with reference to British Coal v Keeble, Robertson, Afolabi and Miller. It accepted that the claimant had sought advice and information, that he presented the claim within three months of receiving the information from the respondent, and that the respondent had not shown evidential prejudice from the delay. Time was therefore extended for the victimisation complaint, which was allowed to continue.