Mrs D Ryan v Aberdeen City Council — 2025

The claimant brought claims of race discrimination, age discrimination, detriment for making protected disclosures, and constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal treated the claimant's case at its highest as relying on a continuing course of conduct ending with the disciplinary outcome communicated on 5 June 2024. Early conciliation began on 24 September 2024 and the claim was presented on 29 November 2024.

For the whistleblowing detriment claim, the tribunal applied the reasonably practicable test and found there was nothing before it to show that it was not feasible for the claimant to present the claim in time. The claimant had been represented by her union over a lengthy period, had asked the union for tribunal support, and had not shown a reason why she could not have started early conciliation earlier. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear that claim.

For the discrimination claims, the tribunal applied the just and equitable test and declined to extend time. It took into account the absence of a good reason for delay, the likely effect on cogency of evidence given the age and breadth of the allegations, prejudice to the respondent, and the apparent difficulty in linking the pleaded treatment to a protected characteristic. The age and race discrimination claims were therefore time barred.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim was accepted as in time. The tribunal found that the respondent appeared to have approached the disciplinary process in a broadly correct way and that it was highly unlikely the claimant would show that the recommendation for informal counselling amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. However, it was not prepared to say the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, so it refused strike out and instead made a £250 deposit order because the claim had little reasonable prospect of success.