Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was presented outside the statutory time limit under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal exercised its discretion not to extend time on a just and equitable basis, finding no sufficient reason to allow the out-of-time claim to proceed.
The tribunal found that the disclosures relied upon by the claimant were not qualifying disclosures as defined in section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant could not rely on a disclosure made by her husband, and the tribunal found she did not make a qualifying disclosure to Alison Clarke on 22 or 23 July 2021.
The tribunal dismissed the victimisation claim under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment provides no detailed reasoning, but the claim failed on its merits following a full hearing.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed following a full merits hearing. The tribunal heard evidence over five days and determined that the dismissal was not unfair, though no detailed reasoning is provided in this summary judgment.
Facts
Mrs Devlin brought claims against the Secretary of State for Justice including sexual harassment, whistleblowing detriment, victimisation, and unfair dismissal. The harassment claim concerned events involving alleged sexual harassment. She also alleged that she suffered detriment after making protected disclosures, including a disclosure to Alison Clarke on 22 or 23 July 2021, and attempted to rely on a disclosure made by her husband. The case proceeded to a five-day full merits hearing in October 2024.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The sexual harassment claim failed because it was presented outside the statutory time limit and the tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds. The whistleblowing detriment claims failed because the tribunal found that the disclosures relied upon were not qualifying disclosures under section 43B ERA 1996, noting the claimant could not rely on her husband's disclosure and that she did not make a qualifying disclosure to Alison Clarke on the dates alleged. The victimisation and unfair dismissal claims also failed on their merits.
Practical note
A claimant cannot rely on protected disclosures made by another person (even a spouse) for the purposes of establishing whistleblowing detriment, and time limit issues remain a significant hurdle for discrimination claims even where a full merits hearing takes place.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2602571/2022
- Decision date
- 11 October 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Secretary of State for Justice
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No