Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti [2018] UKEAT 0020_16_1903 (19 March 2018)

Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti [2018] UKEAT 0020_16_1903 (19 March 2018)

Since the claimant failed to prove any actionable detrimental acts after 30 March 2014, there were no ongoing similar acts or failures to act that could form part of a series for the purposes of enlarging time under s.48(3)(a) ERA. The Employment Tribunal erred in treating ongoing detriment as ongoing acts and in adhering too narrowly to the list of issues regarding the grievance claim, preventing a fair determination based on the evidence.

Citation
[2018] UKEAT 0020_16_1903
Parties
Claimant: Claimant (KJ); Respondent: Respondent (Royal Mail Group)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal and Cross Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal, Remittal for Further Consideration
Outcome
Both appeal and cross-appeal allowed; issues remitted to the Employment Tribunal for further consideration.
Legal Topics
Whistleblowing, Detriment, Protected Disclosure, Limitation Periods, Case Management, Remittal
Employment Law Whistleblowing Detriment Protected Disclosure Limitation Periods Case Management Remittal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (KJ)

Claimant

Respondent (Royal Mail Group)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal and Cross Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal, Remittal for Further Consideration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether detriment claims are in time where the grievance detriment claim failed
  2. 2 Whether the grievance detriment claim was wrongly rejected due to a narrow approach to the list of issues

Ratio Decidendi

Since the claimant failed to prove any actionable detrimental acts after 30 March 2014, there were no ongoing similar acts or failures to act that could form part of a series for the purposes of enlarging time under s.48(3)(a) ERA. The Employment Tribunal erred in treating ongoing detriment as ongoing acts and in adhering too narrowly to the list of issues regarding the grievance claim, preventing a fair determination based on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Both appeal and cross-appeal allowed; issues remitted to the Employment Tribunal for further consideration.

Orders

  • Remit to the same Employment Tribunal to determine whether the detrimental acts relating to the grievance were done on the ground of protected disclosure.
  • Remit to determine if there was a series of similar acts for s.48(3)(a) ERA purposes.