Claimant v Barking and Dagenham Trading Partnership Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
All whistleblowing detriment claims struck out on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of the Tribunal accepting jurisdiction due to statutory time limits. The Claimant was out of time by more than a year, was not prevented by ill-health from bringing claims earlier, knew about Employment Tribunals, had access to professional legal advice through his wife (a qualified solicitor), and chose not to litigate because he wished to resolve matters internally. The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of persuading it that it was not reasonably practicable to bring claims within the statutory time limit.
Facts
The Claimant brought whistleblowing detriment claims relating to events occurring while at work. His last day at work was 31 December 2021, making the primary time limit 30 March 2022. He did not contact ACAS until 14 April 2023, meaning all claims were out of time by more than a year (some up to 17 months). The Claimant argued he was waiting for internal resolution and that litigation was culturally akin to a declaration of war. However, he was fit for work by May 2022, had pursued grievances in 2022, knew about Employment Tribunals, and had access to professional legal advice through his wife, a qualified solicitor at the Government Legal Department.
Decision
The Tribunal struck out all whistleblowing detriment claims on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of establishing it was not reasonably practicable to bring claims within the statutory time limit. The Claimant was not prevented by ill-health, was aware of his rights, had professional legal support available, and made a deliberate choice to pursue internal resolution rather than litigate. The Tribunal found the claims had no reasonable prospects of success on the jurisdictional time limit issue.
Practical note
A claimant who is fit, aware of tribunal procedures, has access to legal advice (particularly through a solicitor spouse), and deliberately chooses to delay litigation in hope of internal resolution has no reasonable prospect of establishing it was not reasonably practicable to bring whistleblowing claims in time, even where up to 17 months late.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3201091/2023
- Decision date
- 9 April 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep