header-logo header-logo

Extra time for whistleblowers

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

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll