PRESS SUMMARY
Win in the Employment Tribunal: Dorman v (1) Reed Talent Solutions Ltd (2) London Fire Commissioner
London South ET, Case Nos 6021196/2024 and 6021197/2024 | Reserved judgment: 17 August 2026
Outcome
Our client, Reed, successfully defended all claims brought against it in the Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed Mr Dorman’s remaining claims against both Respondents for lack of jurisdiction, and the proceedings came to an end.
Background
Mr Dorman was a volunteer with the London Fire Brigade. From January 2024, he was also supplied by Reed, the First Respondent, to the London Fire Commissioner, the Second Respondent, as an agency worker. On 3 April 2024, following allegations of serious misconduct, the Second Respondent informed Reed that it was no longer willing to have him work on the assignment, and Reed ended the assignment that day. On 8 April 2024, it confirmed in writing that the decision was final.
Mr Dorman did not present his claim until 7 December 2024, about eight months later. Both Respondents applied to strike out the claims under Rule 38(1) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The First Respondent’s strike out application was excellently drafted by Reed’s Solicitor, Helena Smith. It identified at the outset each ground on which the Tribunal went on to dispose of the claims:
The claims were out of time;
Mr Dorman lacked the qualifying service for unfair dismissal;
His sex discrimination complaint was unparticularised;
His whistleblowing claim was defeated by his own chronology.
Reasons for the judgment
Unfair dismissal: Mr Dorman accepted that he had less than two years’ service. The Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction under s.94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Whistleblowing: Every disclosure Mr Dorman relied on was made after his assignment ended, so none could have caused it. His alternative case relied on a colleague’s disclosure to him rather than a disclosure he made. The Judge held that this was misconceived.
Time limits:The Judge applied Palmer v Southend-on-Sea BC [1984] ICR 372 and Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy [2019] EWCA Civ 2490. She found that it had been reasonably practicable for Mr Dorman to claim in time:
He knew of the termination immediately;
He took legal advice straight away and was told of the three-month limit;
He contacted ACAS within weeks.
Pursuing matters internally did not justify the delay. The later “detriments” he raised at the hearing were absent from his claim form and were rejected. The Judge added that, had the whistleblowing claims survived, she would have struck them out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Sex discrimination: This was Mr Dorman’s only claim against Reed. It was neither pleaded nor reasonably inferable from his claim form. With no surviving claim, there was nothing to amend.
Significance
Time limits go to jurisdiction, and internal grievances do not stop the clock.
A disclosure made after a dismissal or detriment cannot have caused it.
The claim form defines the case.
Adeola Fadipe, the First Respondent’s barrister, said:
“It was a pleasure to represent the successful respondent in this case, working collaboratively with my solicitor Helena Smith. Employment Agencies are increasingly caught in the crossfire of litigation arising from decisions made by end users. This case illustrates the importance of deploying timely and proactive legal expertise, and having a firm understanding of non-standard worker engagement structures.”