Claimant v Secretary of State for Defence

Struck out for lack of jurisdiction. Under s191 and s192 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, members of the Armed Forces cannot bring claims for unfair dismissal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine such claims and no discretion to accept them.

Struck out for lack of jurisdiction. Under s191 and s192 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, members of the Armed Forces cannot bring claims for whistleblowing. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine such claims and no discretion to accept them.

The original victimisation claim (alleging protected act of reporting sexual fraternisation) was dismissed as out of time - presented approximately one month late. The tribunal found no good reason for the delay and declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds. The claimant's application to amend to add further victimisation allegations (relating to statements about race) was rejected as the amendment would add entirely new factual allegations, was made very late (over 7 months out of time), lacked clarity, and the balance of hardship favoured rejection. The alleged protected act (reporting fraternisation) did not fall within the s27 EqA definition.

Application to amend to add race discrimination claim was rejected. The claim was not on the face of the original ET1 - the claimant mistakenly thought she had ticked the race discrimination box. The amendment sought to add entirely new factual allegations made over 7 months out of time with no good explanation for delay. The factual basis was unclear beyond one alleged comment by Sgt Martin ('you don't belong here') and general allegations of harsher treatment than white colleagues. The tribunal found the balance of hardship and injustice favoured rejecting the amendment, particularly given low prospects on time limits and the existence of a live service complaint process.