Whistleblowing and wage claim dismissed: out of time and not pursued
A former manager's claims for whistleblowing detriment and unauthorised wage deductions were struck out after she presented them late and failed to attend the preliminary hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #whistleblowing
- #unauthorised-deductions
- #non-molestation-order
- #strike-out
- #out-of-time
Key facts
- The claimant presented claims of unauthorised deduction from wages and whistleblowing detriment/dismissal on 2 December 2022.
- The claimant was dismissed on 2 August 2022.
- A non-molestation order was in place preventing contact between the claimant and Mark Banbury.
- The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 12 May 2023.
- The claims were presented out of time; the limitation period for whistleblowing expired on 1 November 2022.
Timeline
-
Claimant dismissed
The claimant was summarily dismissed from her role as a manager.
-
Limitation date for whistleblowing claim
Three months after dismissal, the primary limitation period for the whistleblowing claim expired.
-
Early conciliation notification
The claimant entered early conciliation with ACAS, but this date was after the limitation period.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented her claim to the tribunal.
-
Non-molestation order made
A non-molestation order was made in the County Court preventing Mark Banbury from contacting the claimant.
-
Claimant forwarded order to tribunal
The claimant sent a copy of the non-molestation order to the tribunal.
-
Tribunal wrote to claimant
The tribunal asked the parties to clarify the status of the non-molestation order and suggested a stay.
-
Respondent replied
Mark Banbury confirmed the order and agreed to a stay, but attached an undertakings document instead.
-
Judge directed strike-out consideration
The judge cancelled the case management hearing and listed a public preliminary hearing to consider striking out the claim.
-
Preliminary hearing
Neither party attended. The tribunal struck out the claims for non-pursuit and being out of time.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to strike out the claims because the claimant had not actively pursued them and because they were presented after the legal time limit for whistleblowing claims had expired.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claims on two grounds:
- The claimant was not actively pursuing her claims, as she had not responded to tribunal directions and did not attend the preliminary hearing.
- The claims were presented out of time. The whistleblowing claim had a limitation date of 1 November 2022, but the claimant did not present her claim until 2 December 2022. The early conciliation notification on 30 November 2022 was also after the limitation date, so it did not extend the time limit.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Whistleblowing claims must be presented to the tribunal within three months of the dismissal or detriment – missing this deadline is likely fatal.
- If a court order (like a non-molestation order) affects your ability to pursue a claim, notify the tribunal promptly and ask for a stay or practical adjustments.
- Failing to attend a preliminary hearing or respond to tribunal directions can lead to the claim being struck out for non-pursuit.
- Early conciliation with ACAS must be started before the limitation date to extend the time limit – starting it after the deadline does not help.
What this case shows
This case illustrates how quickly employment tribunal claims can collapse when procedural deadlines are missed. The former manager was dismissed on 2 August 2022 and believed she had been treated unfairly because of whistleblowing. However, she did not present her claim until 2 December 2022 – a month after the three-month time limit for whistleblowing claims had expired. Even though she entered early conciliation with ACAS on 30 November 2022, that was also after the limitation date, so it did not extend the window.
The impact of a non-molestation order
The case was further complicated by a non-molestation order obtained by the claimant against Mark Banbury, one of the respondents. The order prevented direct contact between them. The tribunal tried to clarify the situation and suggested a stay of proceedings, but the claimant did not respond to directions and did not attend the preliminary hearing. The tribunal concluded that the undertakings did not prevent attendance at a telephone hearing, and that the claimant could have pursued the claim against the other respondent or the partnership without contacting Mr Banbury.
Why the result matters
The tribunal struck out the claims on two independent grounds: the claimant was not actively pursuing them, and they were presented out of time. The decision reinforces that time limits are strictly enforced in whistleblowing claims, and that personal circumstances – even a court order – do not excuse a failure to engage with the tribunal process. Anyone considering a similar claim should seek advice early and ensure they meet the three-month deadline, or risk losing their case entirely.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claim struck out for being 38 days late
A former employee's constructive unfair dismissal and whistleblowing claims were struck out after she presented her claim 38 days past the deadline and failed to attend the hearing.
12-year delay dooms whistleblowing and race discrimination claims
An employee who resigned in 2009 brought claims of constructive dismissal, whistleblowing and race discrimination in 2022. The tribunal struck out all claims as having no reasonable prospect of success due to the extreme delay.
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.
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.