COVID test grievance claim struck out as out of time and lacking merit
A former employee who claimed he was victimised for leaving work to take a COVID-19 test had his case struck out for being out of time and having no reasonable prospect of success. He was also ordered to pay £50,186.50 in costs.
2 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant left work on 30 January 2021 to take a COVID-19 test after losing his sense of taste.
- The claimant filed three grievances between January and March 2021 which he says were unresolved or ignored.
- The claimant's claim form was presented on 26 July 2021, more than three months after the first two alleged detriments.
- The claimant failed to comply with multiple tribunal orders to provide a clear list of detriments.
- The tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out.
- The claimant was ordered to pay costs of £50,186.50 for unreasonable conduct.
Timeline
-
Claimant left work for COVID test
The claimant lost his sense of taste, believed he had COVID-19, and left work with permission to take a test. The test was negative.
-
First grievance filed
The claimant filed a grievance about being bullied by Mr Stewart, which he says remains unresolved.
-
Second grievance filed
The claimant filed a grievance to the Governor about matters leading up to his absence, which he says was ignored.
-
Third grievance filed
The claimant filed a grievance to Mr Penny, which he says was ignored.
-
Early conciliation started
Early conciliation commenced with the first respondent.
-
Claim form presented
The claimant presented his claim to the employment tribunal.
-
EJ Harding's order
Employment Judge Harding ordered the claimant to provide a list of detriments by 7 January 2022.
-
Preliminary hearing before EJ Beck
A preliminary hearing was held; the claimant failed to provide a clear list of issues. Directions were given for further particulars.
-
Strike-out hearing
Employment Judge Brewer struck out the claimant's claims as out of time and having no reasonable prospect of success.
-
Costs hearing
The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay costs of £50,186.50 to the first respondent.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the health and safety detriment claims were presented within the three-month time limit, and if not, whether to extend time. It also considered whether the claims should be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success or for the claimant's failure to comply with orders.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the former employee's claims as out of time and struck them out for having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant had left work on 30 January 2021 to take a COVID-19 test, then filed three grievances between January and March 2021. However, his claim form was not presented until 26 July 2021, more than three months after the first two alleged detriments.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time. It also noted that the claimant had failed to comply with multiple orders to provide a clear list of detriments, and that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant was ordered to pay costs of £50,186.50 for unreasonable conduct.
Lessons & takeaways
- Present your claim to the employment tribunal within three months of the alleged detriment – missing this deadline is likely to be fatal.
- If you file a grievance, it does not extend the time limit for bringing a tribunal claim – you must still act within three months.
- Complying with tribunal orders to clarify your case is essential – failure to do so can lead to strike-out and costs orders.
- Unreasonable conduct, such as pursuing a weak claim or ignoring directions, can result in a significant costs award against you.
A claim that unravelled from the start
This case shows how quickly a tribunal claim can fall apart if basic procedural steps are missed. The former employee left work on 30 January 2021 to take a COVID-19 test after losing his sense of taste. He believed he was being bullied and filed three grievances over the following months. But when he finally presented his claim to the tribunal on 26 July 2021, the first two alleged detriments were already out of time.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not explained why it was not reasonably practicable to present those claims earlier. Filing a grievance does not pause the clock – the three-month limit runs from the date of the alleged act, not from the end of any internal process. By the time the claim was lodged, the window for the earliest detriments had closed.
A pattern of non-compliance
The case also suffered from a lack of clarity. Despite multiple orders from employment judges – first in December 2021, then again in October 2022 – the claimant failed to provide a proper list of the detriments he was alleging. This meant the respondent and the tribunal could not identify the issues to be decided. At the preliminary hearing, the judge concluded that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success and struck them out.
The cost of pursuing a weak case
Perhaps the most striking outcome was the costs order. The tribunal found that the claimant had acted unreasonably in the way he conducted the proceedings – by not complying with orders and by pursuing a claim that was both late and poorly defined. He was ordered to pay £50,186.50 to the Secretary of State for Justice. This is a stark reminder that bringing a tribunal claim carries financial risk, especially if the case is weak or the claimant fails to follow directions.
What this means for similar claims
For anyone considering a health and safety detriment claim, the message is clear: act quickly, be specific about what happened and when, and comply with every tribunal order. A grievance is not a substitute for a tribunal claim, and a confusing or incomplete case is likely to be struck out – possibly with a heavy costs penalty.
Similar cases
Former employee loses unfair dismissal and discrimination claims after failing to pursue them
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of continuity of employment, and his race discrimination claim was thrown out as out of time. Other claims were struck out for failing to actively pursue them.
Firefighter's unfair dismissal and race claims struck out as too late
A firefighter who waited over a year to bring unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims after his misconduct dismissal had his case struck out by the tribunal as out of time.
Claim struck out after repeated adjournments and lack of preparation
An employment tribunal struck out an unfair dismissal claim after the claimant failed to prepare for two hearings and made a last-minute adjournment application based on a minor surgery. The claimant was also ordered to pay £1,000 in costs.
Long-serving employee's fresh claim struck out as abuse of process
A former Ministry of Defence employee with 34 years' service had his second unfair dismissal claim struck out for being substantially the same as a 2015 claim he withdrew, and for paying a deposit late.