The claimant brought a claim for detriment suffered after he had made a protected disclosure. The employer replied that he was out of the three-month time limit. He had been off sick after being assaulted and said that his employers had treated him as a troublemaker after he complained and disclosed that he had not been given appropriate training. He argued that the several acts of detriment were part of a series of similar acts or failures within the Act.
In discrimination cases involving an asserted series of similar acts, the acts which are individually out of time should not be struck out at a preliminary hearing on submissions: instead, evidence should be heard and findings of fact made before considering the connection between the acts. In many cases that means that strike out cannot be considered until the final hearing.
The case was a whistleblowing case, and was also an important authority in identifying how loose the connection between “similar acts” can be where they all occurred by reason of the claimant has made a protected disclosure (or, by extension, by reason of the protected characteristic which gives rise to the discrimination claim).