header-logo header-logo

04 January 2007 / Stephen Bartlet-jones , Anisa Niaz-dickinson
Issue: 7254 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Extra time for whistleblowers

What constitutes continuous discrimination for limitation purposes? Stephen Bartlet-Jones and Anisa Niaz-Dickinson report

 Discrimination in the workplace rarely occurs in neat, easily proven incidents. All too often it builds up gradually over time, taking a variety of forms, and gathering confidence and participants. Victims only slowly realise what is happening, and a vulnerable employee may put up with discrimination for months, even years, before making a complaint to a tribunal. Arthur v London Eastern Railway Ltd (trading as One Stansted Express) [2006] EWCA Civ 1358, [2006] All ER (D) 300 (Oct) has ensured that the strict time limits used in whistleblowing claims remain sensitive to the realities of such recurrent and ongoing discrimination cases.

Arthur

John Arthur was employed by London Eastern Railways (LER) as an on-train cabin crew member. He claimed to have made a number of protected public interest disclosures to the police in 2001 concerning assaults on him while at work—which he attributed to insufficient staffing. He alleged that his disclosures led him to be regarded as

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll