The EAT considered what would amount to a series of acts of detriment when considering whether a protected disclosure action was out of time.
Held: HHJ JR Reid QC asked: ‘What then is the meaning of ‘a series of similar acts or failures’? ‘Series’ necessarily connotes some factual linkage between events. It is not simply some concatenation of similar acts or failures. The whole point about that particular phrase is that it enables an employee to bring proceedings within 3 months of the last of the series, provided there are similar acts or failures. That in itself necessarily connotes a temporal element to it; one event following on another.
Then we have the words ‘similar acts or failures’ and here it seems to me that some meaning must be given to the word ‘similar.’ It is not enough that there should have been a series of acts or failures, if Parliament had meant to say ‘part of a series of acts or failures’ it would have said so. Thus, it seems to me, that the learned Chairman was correct in saying that it is necessary that there should be a significant degree of linkage between the events.’
Judges:
HHJ JR Reid QC
Citations:
Unreported, 13 June 2005
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Arthur v London Eastern Railway Ltd (T/A One Stansted Express) CA 25-Oct-2006
The claimant brought a claim for detriment suffered after he had made a protected disclosure. The employer replied that he was out of the three month time limit. He had been off sick after being assaulted, and said that his employers had treated him . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.428300
