The claimant was employed by a company based in Hong Kong. He was seconded from Hong Kong to work in London for an associated company. His secondment was not successful and he was told that his assignment would be terminated. Under the terms of his contract, should a suitable role not be available within the respondent's group of organisations when the associated company terminates the assignment, the employee agrees to resign from their employment with the respondent. The claimant was dismissed because he refused to resign. At the Employment Tribunal, the claimant commenced proceedings against the associated company. His primary complaint was that he was unfairly dismissed, but he also brought claims of discrimination on the grounds of his race and/or religion, as well as claims for unlawful deduction of wages. The associated company responded by saying that the claimant was not employed by them but by the company based in Hong Kong, so the claimant sought to join the Hong Kong company in the proceedings. Both companies said that this claim would be futile because the Hong Kong company was not carrying on business in England and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. There was then an application by the claimant for permission to amend his claim by adding a claim for breach of the whistleblower provisions. The Tribunal first dismissed the claim against the associated company and then ruled that they had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim against the remaining respondent – the claimant's case was dismissed in its entirety.

First the EAT agreed that the claimant came within the legislative grasp of the statutes and regulations on which his claims were based, despite only being seconded to work in England. Counsel for the claimant argued, amongst other points, that the respondent's letterhead referred to it having 'affiliated offices' in London. He also relied on the fact of the claimant's secondment as being a business activity 'carried on' in London. Counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent had no place of business in London and performed no transactions there of any kind, so did not come close to carrying on business in England or Wales. The EAT agreed that the respondent could not in the ordinary sense of the phrase be said to be carrying on business in London, but decided that it was necessary to give an extended meaning to the phrase in order to avoid a result in which the Tribunal, under its regulations, was unable to determine claims in respect of which the primary legislation had conferred jurisdiction on it. The EAT dismissed the disclosure claim, saying that it was hard to believe that the alleged disclosures contributed to the detriments relied on.

_______________________

Appeal No. UKEAT/0246/10/CEA

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 15 October 2010

Judgment handed down on 8 December 2010

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UNDERHILL (PRESIDENT) (sitting alone)

MR. A PERVEZ (APPELLANT)

1. MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED (LONDON BRANCH); 2. MACQUARIE GROUP LTD (RESPONDENTS)

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

**APPEARANCES**

For the Appellant
MR DAVID BERKLEY (one of Her Majesty's Counsel)

Instructed by:
Silverman Sherliker LLP
7 Bath Place
London
EC2A 3DR

For the Respondent
MS SARAH WILKINSON (of Counsel)

Instructed by:
Lewis Silkin LLP
Clifford's Inn
5 Chancery Lane
London
EC4A 1BL

**SUMMARY**

JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Working outside the jurisdiction

Claimant employed by a Hong Kong company - Seconded from Hong Kong to work in London for associated company – Claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination on the grounds of race and/or religious belief, and unlawful deduction of wages – Tribunal holds that it has no jurisdiction by reason of reg. 19 (1) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 because the employer did not carry on business in England or Wales and the acts complained of took place overseas

**Held**, allowing the appeal, that it was necessary to give an extended meaning to the phrase "carry on business" in order to avoid a result in which the Tribunal under its Regulations was unable to determine claims in respect of which the primary legislation had conferred jurisdiction on it: and that on that basis the employer carried on business in England by seconding the Claimant to work in London.

Appeal against refusal of leave to amend to include "whistleblower" claims dismissed

**THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE UNDERHILL** **INTRODUCTION**

1. The Claimant is a bond trader, specialising in convertible bonds. He is of Pakistani nationality. On 1st April 2006 he commenced employment with a company then called Macquarie Securities Ltd but subsequently re-named Macquarie Capital Securities Ltd ("MCSL"). MCSL is a company incorporated and based in Hong Kong: the Claimant's home and working base was in Hong Kong and his contract was expressed to be governed by Hong Kong law. MCSL was a member of the Macquarie group of companies, of which the parent company is an Australian company called Macquarie Group Ltd ("MGL").

1. With effect from 29th September 2008 the Claimant moved to London. The background to this move is a matter of dispute. In short, the Claimant alleges that he made a proposal to his Divisional Director, Mr. Sharman, for a move to London on the basis that it would be a "natural expansion of the growing convertibles business" and that Mr. Sharman had initially been enthusiastic and had given him to believe that the move was approved; but at the last minute it had become clear that he had had no authority to do so. The move had eventually proceeded only after he had complained about having been misled, and against that unsatisfactory background he was only given a "fudged" role in the London team. The Respondents deny this and say that a move was arranged to accommodate the Claimant, who had family reasons for wishing to relocate. It is unnecessary to resolve this dispute for present purposes.

1. Terms for the move were set out in a letter from MCSL to the Claimant in Hong Kong dated 26th September 2008 and signed by him by way of acceptance on 6th October. The following features of the letter are material for the purpose of this appeal:

(1) The move is expressed to be by way of "international assignment" to "Macquarie Bank Limited (London branch)" ("MBL"), which is described in the letter as "the Host", MCSL remaining "the Employer". Hong Kong is referred to as the Claimant's "Home Location" and London as the "Host Location". He was to report to two directors of MBL and "perform your duties on behalf of the Macquarie Group". His remuneration would be paid by MBL. Likewise such matters as annual leave entitlement, sick leave etc. would be in accordance with the policies and practices of MBL as the Host.

(2) The period of assignment was described as "expected to be for a period of up to 12 months starting on 29 September 2008", extendable to a maximum period of five years. The Claimant says, though this is disputed, that he had clearly been given to understand that he would be transferred to London on a permanent basis; and he moved his family to England on that understanding.

(3) The letter contained a provision ("the resignation term") in the following terms:

Further, as we have discussed, should a suitable role not be available within the Macquarie Group when:

* the Host or the Employer ends the assignment; or

* you choose to repatriate to the Home Location or to relocate to another location,

then you will be required, and have already agreed, to resign from your employment with the Macquarie Group at that time.

At the same time his contract of employment was re-issued in the form of a document headed "Local Hire Employment Agreement".

1. The Claimant worked for MBL in London as a member of its structured equity finance department for just under a year. He did not prosper. On 12th August 2009 he was told at a meeting (in London) that his assignment would terminate at the end of September and that since there was no work for him in Hong Kong the resignation term would be activated. On 21st August his solicitors wrote protesting at what had occurred and saying that he would not resign. On 28th August MBL gave written notice to terminate his assignment with effect from 29th September. By letter dated 18th September MCSL terminated his employment with immediate effect: the letters was written from its Hong Kong office but addressed to the Claimant in London. He was told by e-mail dated 2nd October that he had been dismissed because he had refused to resign as required by the resignation term.

1. On 2nd October 2009 the Claimant commenced proceedings in the Employment Tribunal against MBL and MGL ("the original Respondents"). His primary complaint was that he was unfairly dismissed. But he also complained that the resignation term was included in the assignment letter because he was a Pakistani and/or a Muslim and accordingly that its inclusion, and likewise his dismissal in purported reliance on it, constituted an act of discrimination on the grounds of his race and/or religion. There were also claims for unlawful deduction of wages and for failure to provide him with a written statement of the reasons for his dismissal.

1. The original Respondents took the point in their ET3 that the Claimant was not employed by either of them but by MCSL. The Claimant sought in response to join MCSL in the proceedings, but the original Respondents and MCSL contended that even if late joinder of a further party were otherwise permissible, it would be futile because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim against MCSL, primarily because it was not carrying on business in England: I set out the argument more fully below.

1. Those linked issues were considered at a pre-hearing review before Employment Judge Pontac in the London Central Employment Tribunal on 4th February 2010. There was also an application by the Claimant for permission to amend to add a claim for breach of the "whistleblower" provisions. The Claimant withdrew the claim against MGL, and the Judge dismissed the claim against MBL on the basis that it was MCSL and not MBL which was the Claimant's employer. She accepted MCSL's contention that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim against it and on that basis refused to join it as a Respondent and, which necessarily followed, refused the application to amend. The Claimant's claim was accordingly dismissed in its entirety.

1. The Claimant has appealed against the Judge's refusal to allow MCSL to be joined. There is no appeal against the dismissal of the claim against MGL. The Claimant did originally seek to appeal against the dismissal of the claim against MBL; but Mr. David Berkley QC, who has represented him on the appeal (but did not appear below), has rightly accepted that the Claimant was employed by MCSL throughout and that accordingly no claim could lie against MBL.

1. The primary issue for me on this appeal is thus whether the Judge was right to hold that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims against MCSL. However if the appeal succeeds there is a further issue as to the amendment application. I take the two issues in turn.

**A. THE JURISDICTION ISSUE**

1. The starting-point must be to determine whether the Claimant's claims come within the "grasp" of the legislation on which they are based – that is, whether on their true construction the statutes and regulations in question confer rights on someone employed by an overseas company but seconded to work in England on terms such as those of the assignment letter. The legislation in question falls into two groups. I take them in turn.

1. The Discrimination Claims. The Race Relations Act 1976 and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 confer the relevant rights on persons employed "at an establishment in Great Britain": see section 4 of the Act and regulation 6 of the Regulations. Section 8 (1) of the Act and regulation 9 (1) of the Regulations provide, in identical terms, that, for the relevant purposes:

… [E]mployment is to be regarded as being at an establishment in Great Britain if the employee –

(a) does his work wholly or partly in Great Britain; or

(b) ... .

Ms. Wilkinson, who appeared for MCSL (and who also did not appear below), accepted that at the time of the acts complained of the Claimant fell within the terms of limb (a) of that definition. That concession seems to me to be correct.

1. The 1996 Act Claims. The remainder of the claims are under the Employment Rights Act 1996. **The position here is less straightforward. It can be analysed as follows:

(1) Notoriously, the 1996 Act has no provisions defining the "legislative grasp" in cases with an international element. That lacuna was filled by the decision of the House of Lords in Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] ICR 250. Two of the three cases heard by the House concerned employees working overseas for British employers, but the third, Crofts v Veta Ltd, concerned pilots working for Cathay Pacific who, though they were employed by a Hong Kong company (i.e. Veta Ltd) and their duties took them overseas, were based at Heathrow. At para. 27 of his speech (pp. 260–1) Lord Hoffmann (with whom the other members of the House agreed) said that an employment tribunal would have jurisdiction to entertain a claim of unfair dismissal brought by an employee who was "working in Great Britain" at the time of his dismissal (while making it clear that an employee would not be regarded as working in Great Britain if he were merely present on a casual visit). In the case of an employee who was peripatetic, like the pilots in Crofts v Veta, he should be regarded as "working in Great Britain" if he were based here.

(2) Plainly with that test in mind, the Judge said, at para. 35 of the Reasons:

… no real issue arose as to whether or not the claimant was based here. The respondent did not argue that he was not and the evidence showed that he was.

(3) Before me Ms. Wilkinson contended that the Claimant's case was different from that of the claimants in Crofts v Veta because he was only on secondment and his base remained Hong Kong. In view of what the Judge says about how the case was put before her I am not sure that it is open to Ms. Wilkinson to take this point; but in any event I think the Judge was right to say that the evidence showed that the Claimant was working in Great Britain at the material time, and specifically at the date of his dismissal. Whatever the precise expectations as to the length of his secondment, it is clear from the terms of the assignment letter, and from what happened in practice, that the Claimant was working in London on a settled (and indefinite) basis, as part of MBL's operation, reporting to its managers and paid by it. If that is right, I am not sure that it adds anything to say that he was "based" in London: that concept only becomes important where the employee is peripatetic, which the Claimant was not. But if it is relevant I would also say that it was clear that his base was in London for the duration of the secondment.

I should emphasise that my view is based on the circumstances of this particular case. "Secondments" come in all shapes and sizes, and a different conclusion might be appropriate if the secondment were for a shorter time or the employee was less integrated into the business of the company to which he was seconded.

1. I therefore agree with the Judge that the Claimant comes within the legislative grasp of the statutes and regulations on which his claims are based.

1. The legislation in question confers (exclusive) jurisdiction to determine claims to enforce the rights conferred by them (in the employment field) on the employment tribunals: see section 54 of the 1976 Act, regulation 28 of the 2003 Regulations and section 111 of the 1996 Act. It might be thought that it necessarily followed that the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the Claimant's claims. But unfortunately it is not as simple as that. The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004, which are the **regulations by which the tribunals are established, contain their own provision as to territorial jurisdiction. Regulation 19, which is headed "Jurisdiction of tribunals in Scotland and in England & Wales" reads, so far as concerns England and Wales, (and so far as relevant for present purposes):

(1) An employment tribunal in England or Wales shall only have jurisdiction to deal with proceedings (referred to as "English and Welsh proceedings") where -

**

(a) the respondents or one of the respondents resides or carries on business in England and Wales;

(b) had the remedy been by way of action in the county court the cause of action would have arisen wholly or partly in England and Wales;

(c) … ; or

(d) … .

The Judge held that the effect of regulation 19 was that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. She said, at paras. 30-31 of the Reasons:

30 In accordance with the facts MCSL does not reside or carry on business in England or Wales, and if the remedy had been by way of action in the county court, the causes of action, both the dismissal and the discrimination, arose wholly in Hong Kong.

31 Thus the claimant's causes of action arose in Hong Kong, and accordingly I decided that, by reg. 19 of the 2004 Regulations, the employment tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with proceedings against MCSL … .

1. Before I consider the Claimant's challenge to that reasoning, I should make two background points about regulation 19 (1):

(1) The heading to the regulation suggests that its purpose was simply to regulate the distribution of jurisdiction between tribunals in England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other; and indeed for that reason in two cases prior to the decision of the House of Lords in Lawson v Serco this Tribunal held that it (or, strictly, its identically worded predecessor) could not be regarded as having been intended to define the legislative grasp of the 1996 Act : see Jackson v Ghost Ltd [2003] IRLR 824, at paras. 72-83 (pp. 829-831) and Financial Times Ltd v Bishop (UKEAT/0147/03), at paras. 46-52. Accordingly it may also be that neither the draftsman of the Regulations nor the draftsman of the various substantive statutes conferring jurisdiction on the employment tribunal had in mind the potential impact of the wording of regulation 19 (1) on cases with a "non-GB" element. But the fact remains that that wording does on its face have such an effect, and Mr. Berkley did not argue that regulation 19 could simply be ignored because it was not concerned with the situation which arises in this case.

(2) Although, as will appear, no point arises directly on head (b), its broad effect is that the employment tribunal will have jurisdiction in respect of a particular claim if the acts or omissions which it is necessary to establish in order to constitute a cause of action, or any part of them, are alleged to have occurred in England or Wales. Why it was thought necessary to consider that enquiry on the hypothetical basis of an action in the County Court is unclear: the answer must lie somewhere deep in the legislative history, but this was not explored before me.

1. Although the Notice of Appeal contained a challenge to the Judge's conclusion as regards limb (b) of regulation 19 Mr. Berkley abandoned that ground: that is, he accepted that if the Claimant's remedy had been by way of action in the County Court the causes of action in respect of which he claimed would have arisen wholly outside England and Wales. I did not question the concession at the time, but in the course of writing this judgment I have come to doubt whether it is correct. I understand it to be based, at least so far as the discrimination and unfair dismissal claims are concerned, on the fact that the assignment letter, including the resignation term, and the dismissal letter were both written from Hong Kong. (I am not clear about the claim for unlawful deduction of wages.) As regards the unfair dismissal claim, I should have thought that it was strongly arguable that the dismissal occurred where it was communicated: that was the view of this Tribunal, HH Judge Peter Clark presiding, in Crofts v Veta (UKEAT/0367/03) – see para. 50 (ii)¹. As regards the discrimination claim, did not the existence of the term throughout the Claimant's secondment and its purported activation constitute acts done in England ? (Indeed if the relevant act was done before the start of the Claimant's secondment he would not have been working at an establishment in Great Britain at the material time.) If these points had been potentially determinative I would have had to consider whether it would be right to invite Mr. Berkley to reconsider his concession. But in the event that is not the case.

1. Mr. Berkley's case before me was squarely that the Judge should have held that MCSL was carrying on business in London, so that the case fell within limb (a) of regulation 19 (1). He relied on the fact that MCSL's letterhead referred to it having "affiliated offices" in, among other places, London and to a reference in the Local Hire Employment Agreement to the Macquarie Group comprising "the Employer and its worldwide related entities". He also relied on the fact of the Appellant's secondment as being a business activity "carried on" in London. He pointed out that when the Appellant's solicitors wrote to MCSL in Hong Kong the reply came from the "UK branch" of a company called Macquarie Group Services Australia Pty Ltd at the same London address as MBL.

1. Ms. Wilkinson in her clear and intelligent submissions contended that none of the facts relied on by Mr. Berkley came close to establishing that MCSL carried on business in England or Wales. On the evidence it had no place of business in London and performed no transactions here of any kind. The fact that it had associated companies in London, and identified them on its letterhead, is nothing to the point: there was no evidence whatever that they acted as overseas branches or offices for it, nor does the word "affiliated" suggest otherwise. She referred me to the case-law concerning the provisions relating to service in the Rules of the Supreme Court and the Companies Acts, and in particular to Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Aktien-Gesellschaft für Motor und Motorfahrzeugbau Vorm. Cudell & Co [1902] 1 QB 342, Davies v British Geon Ltd [1957] QB 1 and South India Shipping Corp Ltd v Export–Import Bank of Korea [1985] 1WLR 585. Although they did not afford direct assistance, it is worth noting that it was assumed in all of them that a company could not carry on business within the jurisdiction without some physical place of business in its own name. No doubt secondment of the Appellant to MBL in London constituted in some sense part of MCSL's business activities; but not every business-related activity performed within a country constitutes the carrying on of business there. She accepted that it would be different if MCSL's business consisted, or consisted in part, of supplying employees to other businesses (associated or not), as in the case of a group service company: that was indeed the basis on which the employment tribunal in Crofts v Veta held that it had jurisdiction in relation to the predecessor provision to regulation 19 (1) (a), and that reasoning was upheld by this Tribunal – see at para. 59 (i)². But those were not the facts here.

1. Those submissions are powerful. I accept that MCSL could not in any ordinary sense of the phrase be said to have been carrying on business in London. But if it followed that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction that would be a very surprising result. Parliament would have conferred rights on a group of employees but would in respect of one sub-set of that group have failed to provide a forum in which those rights could be enforced. Even if my doubts about Mr. Berkley's concession are correct and the Claimant could on the facts of this case have relied on limb (b), there could be cases where that route is unavailable because the acts complained of unequivocally took place outside the jurisdiction. Take for example the case of an employee of a French company on a "non-casual" secondment to a different company in London who is subjected to racial harassment by a colleague in the course of a trip to New York (or indeed Edinburgh), or who is dismissed at a meeting with his employers in Paris. The case would be within the legislative grasp of the 1976 or 1996 Acts, but if MCSL's case were correct an English tribunal could not entertain the claim³. Such a situation seems wrong in principle.

1. Ms. Wilkinson sensibly faced up to this point. She emphasised that the sub-set in question is very limited. The huge majority of employees working in England or Wales will be employed by employers who reside or carry on business here, so that regulation 19 (1) (a) will apply: even foreign–based employers will in all ordinary circumstances have a place of business in the jurisdiction which is where, or is the base from which, the employee works. The only exception would appear to be a case, like the present, of an employee seconded on an ad hoc basis (i.e. not by an employer part of whose business is to supply employees) to work in England or Wales on a sufficiently long-term basis to be regarded as working in Great Britain. But even in such a case the tribunal would, by virtue of limb (b), have jurisdiction over complaints relating to acts or omissions occurring within England and Wales. Thus the only situation apparently covered by the substantive legislation but in respect of which the employment tribunal would have no jurisdiction would be one where, although the employee was (ex hypothesi) working or based in Great Britain, he was complaining about acts done outside England and Wales by an employer which neither "resided" in either country nor carried on business there. Such a result can hardly, she submitted, be described as repugnant. Although it may seem anomalous that Parliament should grant a right without a remedy, the anomaly is formal rather than substantial. If one reads the substantive legislation and the regulations together, the situation is simply one where a perfectly sensible limit is placed on the rights conferred, albeit by a somewhat clumsy method. In the rare case where jurisdiction is excluded by regulation 19 (1), the employee will of course still be entitled to bring whatever claims are available to him under his contract and/or under the general law of the country where his employer is resident and/or where the acts complained of were done.

1. I was tempted by those submissions, but in the end I do not think I can accept them. It is in my judgment wrong in principle that a group of employees, however limited, should notionally enjoy protections which they cannot in fact enforce; and I do not believe that an intention to produce that result should be imputed to the Secretary of State, as the maker of the Regulations, unless it is inescapable. The authorities referred to at para. 15 (1) above are relevant here: in both Bryant and Jackson v Ghost, though the point under consideration was not the same, Judge Burke QC and Judge Clark emphasised that the Regulations could not properly be used to gloss or limit the terms of the primary legislation. In order to avoid such a result it is necessary to hold that in the particular context of regulation 19 a company can "carry on business" in England and Wales by seconding an employee to work at an establishment here, even if the supply of workers to third parties is not part of its ordinary business. That is, I accept, a strained construction; but it is not an impossible one, and I believe it is necessary in order to give effect to the rule-maker's intentions.

1. In my view, therefore, the Judge was wrong to hold that regulation 19 had the effect of depriving the Tribunal of jurisdiction to entertain a claim against MCSL. Since that is the only basis of objection to the joinder application, I substitute a finding that MCSL be joined as a Respondent. It will be necessary for the Details of Claim to be amended in order accurately to formulate the claim against MCSL. I direct that Amended Details of Claim be served on MCSL by no later than 23rd December, with liberty to MCSL to serve an Amended Response by no later than 14th January. The intention is that the Claimant should re-plead against MCSL, mutatis mutandis, the claims previously pleaded against MGL and MBL. If there is any question whether the amended pleading goes further than that, application may be made to the Employment Tribunal.

1. I should add for completeness that Mr. Berkley did not seek to rely on Bleuse v MBT Transport Ltd [2008] ICR 488, though Ms. Wilkinson made a passing reference to it in her submissions. In a case where the acts complained of occurred outside the European Union, he may have been right not to do so; but in a different case "the Bleuse principle" might produce a more direct route to the same result.

**B. THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION**

1. The amendment application was made in December 2009. The draft Amended Details of Claim refer to the complaints which the Claimant had in the original pleading said that he had made about Mr. Sharman prior to the move and pleaded that these constituted protected disclosures. It is then averred that (a) the inclusion of the resignation term and (b) the giving of the "fudged" role referred to at para. 2 above were by reason of those disclosures and were accordingly a breach of the Claimant's rights under section 47B of the 1996 Act. It is also pleaded that his solicitors' letter of 21st August 2009 constituted a protected disclosure and that it was the principal reason for his dismissal, which was accordingly unfair by reference to section 103A.

1. The Judge dismissed the application primarily on the basis which I have now held to be wrong, namely that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain any claim against MCSL. But she said that in any event the claim was out of time and that there was no evidence to indicate that it was not reasonably practicable to have brought it in time (Reasons para. 38).

1. That reasoning was challenged in the Notice of Appeal on the basis (para. 6.8) that "any discretion to extend the time limits" was not exercised properly or at all and that "the application to amend the ET1 … was made within time" (para. 6.9). Those grounds are hardly very well expressed, but Mr. Berkley reformulated them in a supplemental skeleton argument. He accepted that detriments (a) and (b) had occurred more than three months (in fact, well over a year) before the presentation of the complaint but contended that "the most important and significant detriment", namely the dismissal, was within the three-month limit. As regards (a) and (b) he submitted that "the Appellant made out a prima facie case for the 3 incidents to be treated collectively as a series of acts continuing up to and including the date of dismissal". The skeleton does not maintain the argument advanced in an earlier skeleton, though not pleaded in the Notice of Appeal, to the effect that it was not reasonably practicable to bring those claims in time: any such argument would have been hopeless in view of the fact that, as the Judge noted, no evidence in support of it had been adduced.

1. Those contentions do not, as I have said, correspond to the grounds pleaded in the Notice of Appeal. It would be open to me to admit them nonetheless, but I do not as a matter of discretion think it right to do so, because I think the Judge was clearly right to refuse permission to amend on the material before her, even if her expressed reasons were defective or inadequate. It is not clear how the time point was advanced to her: certainly the "continuing act" argument does not seem to have been run. But even if these claims would have been in time if included in the original claim (which is at least debatable), that was not necessarily the decisive point. The application itself was well out of time and it is right to consider the arguability of the claims which the Claimant was seeking to include. Those claims were thinly pleaded, and in my judgment they were artificial and far-fetched. It is unclear on the amended pleading what the alleged disclosures amounted to. But even if there were disclosures within the meaning of the Act it is hard to believe that they contributed to the detriments relied on. That is particularly the case as regards what Mr. Berkley rightly describes as "the most important and significant detriment" – in truth, the only one that mattered – namely the Claimant's dismissal: his assignment had been terminated, and he had already been asked to resign, before the solicitors' letter was written, and it is frankly inconceivable that that letter was "the principal reason" for his dismissal. Whether or not the time points now raised here have any merit, I decline to allow them to be pursued in circumstances when the underlying claim is so frail. I would add that no reason is advanced either for the failure to plead the whistleblower point originally or for the failure to formulate earlier the answer to the time point now relied on.

1. I accordingly dismiss the appeal against the refusal of leave to amend to include claims under sections 47B and 103A of the 1996 Act.

1 Though it appears that a different rule may apply to common law claims – see Holland v Bennett [1902] 1 KB 867.

**

2 The point was not pursued in the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, though Lord Phillips MR adopted similar reasoning in the Court of Appeal in addressing a question about service – see [2005] ICR 1436, at para. 45 (p. 1451 C-D).

3 In the example of the discrimination claim the colleague would probably, though not necessarily, be an employee of the "host" company rather than of the victim's own employer. But that would make no difference because of the provisions relating to discrimination against "contract workers".