Did the imposition of a new contract amount to a continuing act for the purpose of whistleblowing time limits?
No, held the EAT in Ikejiaku v British Institute of Technology Limited.
The tribunal had rejected the Claimant's argument that the imposition of a new contract amounted to a continuing act as the new contract continued to be in place until the Claimant's dismissal.
The EAT upheld this decision. The time limit ran from the date of the act or failure to act. Tribunals should not confuse a continuing detriment with a continuing act. There was no basis for concluding that the imposition of the new contract was a continuing act which extended over the whole period ending with the Claimant's dismissal. Rather, it was a plain example of a 'one-off' act with continuing consequences. Accordingly, the time limit ran from the date of the new contract.
Thanks to Tim Kenward of 7 Harrington Street Chambers for preparing this case summary.