T Amber v West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service
[2024] EAT 146
Nkechi Leeks v Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
7 November 2024
[2024] EAT 178
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A woman sued her former employer for discrimination and whistleblowing. The judge threw out the case because it was too late. The appeals court agreed that it was too late for the discrimination case, but sent the whistleblowing case back to the judge for a better look at the rules about how long she had to complain.
Key Facts
- •Mrs Leeks applied for catering assistant roles at Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust in March 2020.
- •She claims to have been offered a part-time role in June 2020, attended a taster session in July 2020, but received no start date.
- •She initiated proceedings in December 2020, alleging religious and disability discrimination and whistleblowing detriment.
- •The Employment Judge (EJ) dismissed the claims as out of time.
- •The appeal concerned the application of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (NHS Recruitment - Protected Disclosure) Regulations 2018 and the EJ's decision on extending time.
Legal Principles
Time limits for whistleblowing claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (NHS Recruitment - Protected Disclosure) Regulations 2018 (Reg 5).
Employment Rights Act 1996 (NHS Recruitment - Protected Disclosure) Regulations 2018, Regulation 5
Just and equitable extension of time limits for employment tribunal claims.
Various case law (e.g., Keeble, Robertson v Bexley Community Centre, Kingston upon Hull City Council v Matuszowicz)
Outcomes
The appeal regarding the application of Regulation 5 of the 2018 Regulations was allowed.
The EJ failed to properly analyse which provision of Reg 5(3) applied to determine when the time limit began to run for the whistleblowing claim. The matter was remitted to the ET for proper analysis.
The appeal regarding the EJ's refusal to extend time was dismissed.
The EAT held that the EJ had considered all relevant factors and reached a permissible conclusion, even if the reasoning could have been expressed more clearly. The Claimant's delay wasn't solely due to being 'in the dark,' and the EJ considered the Claimant's understanding of the situation.