header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 January 2007 / Stephen Bartlet-jones , Anisa Niaz-dickinson
Issue: 7254 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Extra time for whistleblowers

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
NLJ this week: Volunteers, promotions & perilous appeals
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
NLJ this week: When saying no to mediation pays
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll