Cases2402185/2024

Claimant v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

20 November 2024Before Employment Judge DunlopManchesterremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Detrimentstruck out

Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to being presented outside the time limit. While it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim within the primary time limit due to exceptional personal circumstances (marriage breakdown, police involvement, child mental health crisis), the claimant failed to bring it within a reasonable further period thereafter. She returned to work in March 2021 and had a stable period until April 2022 when she could have brought the claim, but did not do so simply because it had not occurred to her. This ignorance was not reasonable for a professional employee with access to information.

Facts

Claimant nurse alleged she made a protected disclosure via DATEX form in September 2019 about a colleague's conduct. In December 2019 that colleague made a counter-allegation against her. In January 2020 claimant was informed of investigation and went on sick leave. In August 2020 she was told there was no case to answer. She alleges three detriments: the counter-allegation, the decision to investigate, and the length of the investigation. In September 2020, before she could return to work, her marriage suddenly broke down with police involvement. She experienced significant personal trauma through late 2020 including her child's mental health crisis. She returned to work March 2021 and worked steadily until April 2022 when her grandfather died in hospital after her ex-husband caused his new partner (also hospital staff) to access the grandfather's medical records. Claimant went on sick leave June 2022, became pregnant January 2023, and was diagnosed with PTSD October 2024. In January 2024 she learned about tribunal claims and brought this claim in April 2024.

Decision

The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented over three years out of time. While exceptional personal circumstances in late 2020 made it not reasonably practicable to bring the claim within the primary time limit, the claimant did not bring it within a reasonable further period. By March 2021 she had returned to work and had a stable period until at least April 2022 when she could have brought a claim. She did not do so simply because it had not occurred to her. This ignorance was not reasonable for a professional employee with no barriers to seeking advice. The respondent would face genuine evidential difficulties defending such a stale claim.

Practical note

Even where exceptional circumstances excuse delay within the primary limitation period, claimants must still act within a reasonable further period once circumstances stabilise, and professional employees cannot rely indefinitely on simple ignorance of their rights to excuse further delay.

Legal authorities cited

Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton [1991] ICR 488Biggs v Somerset County Council [1996] ICR 364Nolan v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services EAT 0109/2011University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust v Williams EAT 0291/2012Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372Walls Meat Co v Khan [1979] ICR 52

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.48(3)ERA 1996 s.47BERA 1996 s.207BERA 1996 s.111(2)(b)

Case details

Case number
2402185/2024
Decision date
20 November 2024
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Nurse

Claimant representation

Represented
No