Claimant v Animal and Plant Health Agency
Outcome
Individual claims
Detriments 1 to 10 were not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to present them in time. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear these complaints.
Detriments 11, 12 and 13 alleging detriment on the ground of making a protected disclosure were heard on their merits but the tribunal found they were not well founded and dismissed them.
The complaint of automatically unfair dismissal on the ground of making a protected disclosure was heard on its merits but the tribunal found it was not well founded and dismissed it.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was heard on its merits but the tribunal found it was not well founded and dismissed it.
Facts
Mr Weavin was dismissed by the Animal and Plant Health Agency and brought claims of whistleblowing detriment and unfair dismissal. He alleged 13 separate detriments related to protected disclosures. The case proceeded to a 14-day full merits hearing in which Mr Weavin represented himself against counsel for the respondent public body.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. Detriments 1 to 10 were dismissed for want of jurisdiction as they were presented outside the time limit and it was reasonably practicable to present them in time. Detriments 11 to 13, the automatic unfair dismissal claim based on whistleblowing, and the ordinary unfair dismissal claim were all dismissed as not well founded.
Practical note
A litigant in person bringing multiple whistleblowing detriment claims must be vigilant about time limits, as late claims will be struck out if it was reasonably practicable to present them in time, regardless of the merits.
Case details
- Case number
- 6000444/2023
- Decision date
- 3 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 14
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No