canavanSECCSEAT201502
EAT Victimisation Discrimination: Detriment – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment
By this appeal the Claimant attacked a lengthy and detailed decision of the Tribunal at a Pre-Hearing Review at which the Respondents sought to prevent the Claimant from pursuing to trial a large number of allegations of detriment for making protected disclosures and for trade union activities set out in a ‘Further Information’ document put forward months after the ET1 and an ‘Amended Particulars’ document put forward well over a year after the ET1.
The Judge permitted most of the disputed allegations in the former to proceed but did not allow most of the disputed allegations in the latter to proceed.
The appeal involved, in large measure, the application to many paragraphs, on which the Claimant sought to rely, of familiar principles as to interference on appeal with interlocutory orders and as to time limits. The only possibly unusual point was the application of the decision of the Court of Session in Miklaszewicz v Stolt Offshore Ltd ([2002] IRLR 344) that in a protected disclosure case, time runs from the occurrence of the alleged detriment and not from the alleged disclosure.
Jeffrey Burke QC HHJ
[2015] UKEAT 0187 – 13 – 1302
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Stolt Offshore Ltd v Miklaszewicz SCS 21-Dec-2001
In a protected disclosure case, time runs from the occurrence of the alleged detriment and not from the alleged disclosure.
Lord Nimmo Smith said: ‘It would appear to us to be consistent with the main purpose of the 1998 Act to approach the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.542625
