T Amber v West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service
[2024] EAT 146
Elaina Cohen v Khalid Mahmood MP
8 November 2023
[2023] EAT 144
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker sued her boss for unfairly firing her and for retaliating against her whistleblowing. The judge said the worker was allowed to submit her case late, even though she'd made a mistake on her initial paperwork. However, the judge sent the case back to be looked at again because they'd made a mistake about whether the boss had threatened to fire her.
Key Facts
- •Ms Cohen was dismissed by Mr Mahmood MP.
- •Ms Cohen brought claims for unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and discrimination.
- •Ms Cohen initially submitted an ET1 with the wrong ACAS ECC number.
- •The correct number was provided after the primary limitation period expired.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) extended time to submit the claim.
- •Mr Mahmood appealed the ET's decision to extend time.
- •Ms Cohen appealed the ET's rejection of a specific whistleblowing detriment claim.
Legal Principles
The key issue when considering an extension of time for a late claim is whether the mistaken belief that the form had been correctly presented was reasonable, considering all facts and circumstances. The nature of the original mistake is relevant but not determinative.
Adams v BT [2017] ICR 382
Sections 98 and 103A of the Employment Rights Act (unfair dismissal)
Employment Rights Act
Outcomes
Mr Mahmood's appeal regarding the extension of time was dismissed.
The ET considered the relevant factors and its decision was not perverse, aligning with the principles in Adams v BT.
Ms Cohen's appeal regarding the whistleblowing detriment claim was allowed.
The ET made a perverse finding by contradicting an earlier finding that Mr Mahmood threatened dismissal. The case was remitted for reconsideration of this finding and its impact on other conclusions.