Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing claims dismissed as out of time
An employment tribunal struck out a Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims, leaving only an ordinary unfair dismissal claim to proceed. The tribunal also refused the employer's bid to strike out the remaining claim due to the claimant's conduct.
2 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Lead Software Consultant from 28 June 2015 until 17 November 2021.
- The claimant's whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims were dismissed or struck out as out of time or having no reasonable prospect of success.
- The only remaining claim is for ordinary unfair dismissal on grounds of redundancy.
- The respondent's application to strike out the unfair dismissal claim due to the claimant's conduct was refused.
- The claimant made serious allegations against the respondent on social media, but the tribunal found a fair trial remains possible.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a Lead Consultant with ICT Infotech Ltd.
-
Alleged protected disclosure
Claimant allegedly said to a colleague: 'Should I commit suicide or kill my family to make you happy?'
-
Assignment terminated
Claimant's assignment to Santander was terminated and his access disabled.
-
Grievance report
Respondent issued a grievance report stating claimant was not a team player.
-
Dismissal
Claimant's employment was terminated on grounds of redundancy.
-
Early conciliation started
Early conciliation began and ended on 18 February 2022.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his ET1 claim form.
-
Preliminary hearing (EJ Cotton)
Whistleblowing detriment claims dismissed as out of time; automatically unfair dismissal struck out.
-
Preliminary hearing (EJ Bansal)
Respondent's strike-out application refused; case management orders varied.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's whistleblowing claims were brought in time, whether the automatically unfair dismissal claim had any reasonable prospect of success, and whether the remaining unfair dismissal claim should be struck out due to the claimant's conduct in the proceedings.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's whistleblowing detriment claims as out of time, as the last alleged detriment occurred on 30 June 2021 but the claim was not presented until 12 March 2022. It also struck out the automatically unfair dismissal claim under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, finding no reasonable prospect of success.
However, the tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the ordinary unfair dismissal claim on grounds of the claimant's conduct, including serious social media allegations. The judge held that a fair trial remained possible and that the conduct did not justify striking out the claim.
No compensation was awarded as the only remaining claim is yet to be heard.
Lessons & takeaways
- Whistleblowing detriment claims must be brought within three months of the last act or failure to act – waiting for a grievance outcome does not extend this time limit.
- An automatically unfair dismissal claim based on whistleblowing requires a clear link between the disclosure and the dismissal; vague or unsubstantiated allegations are likely to be struck out.
- Making serious allegations against an employer on social media can risk strike-out of your claim, but tribunals may still allow a fair trial if the allegations do not prevent a fair hearing.
- If you are representing yourself, seek legal advice early to avoid missing time limits that can be fatal to your claim.
A case of missed deadlines and weak links
This case illustrates two common pitfalls in whistleblowing claims: missing the strict time limit and failing to establish a connection between the alleged disclosure and the dismissal. The claimant, a Lead Software Consultant with six years' service, alleged that a comment made to a colleague in February 2021 was a protected disclosure. He claimed that subsequent actions by his employer – including the termination of his client assignment and a negative grievance report – were detriments for making that disclosure.
However, the tribunal found that the last alleged detriment occurred on 30 June 2021, meaning the three-month time limit expired by 30 September 2021. The claimant did not present his claim until 12 March 2022, a delay of over five months. His reasons – waiting for a grievance outcome and poor mental health – did not persuade the tribunal that it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time. The message is clear: the clock starts ticking from the date of the last act, not from when you feel ready.
The automatically unfair dismissal claim fell at the first hurdle
The claimant also argued that his dismissal on grounds of redundancy was automatically unfair because the real reason was his whistleblowing. But the tribunal struck this out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The alleged disclosure – a comment about suicide or harming family – did not appear to be a qualifying disclosure in the public interest, and there was no evidence linking it to the redundancy decision. This shows that simply alleging a protected disclosure is not enough; there must be a credible basis for the claim.
Conduct did not derail the remaining claim
Despite the claimant's serious allegations against the respondent on social media, the tribunal refused to strike out the ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The judge noted that a fair trial remained possible, and that the conduct, while concerning, did not justify the draconian step of striking out. This is a reminder that tribunals will consider whether a fair hearing can still be held before throwing out a claim based on a party's behaviour.
Similar cases
Threatening emails and abuse of witnesses: claim struck out as vexatious
A former employee who sent threatening emails to colleagues and called a witness a liar outside the tribunal room had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal said a fair trial was no longer possible.
Strike-out of disability discrimination claim against CEO: no specific allegations
A former employee's disability discrimination claim against the CEO of CSH Surrey was struck out after she failed to particularise any specific allegations against him. The tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.
25-year employee loses unfair dismissal and discrimination claims after harassment allegations ruled out of time
A process controller with 25 years' service had his harassment claim struck out as too old, and his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims dismissed after a full hearing. The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and any discrimination was justified.
Whistleblowing detriment claims partially struck out for being out of time
A former employee's whistleblowing detriment claims against BAE Systems have been partially struck out as out of time, but her constructive dismissal and some other claims can proceed.