Case 1803582/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr C Tosh v J M Hall Couriers Limited — 2019

Case reference: 1803582/2019
Decision date: 27 December 2019
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge I McFatridge
Venue: Dundee

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr C Tosh

Respondent

J M Hall Couriers Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the Dundee hearing on 20 December 2019, Employment Judge I McFatridge dealt with the respondent's application to have its ET3 accepted out of time. The claimant had presented a claim said to include unfair dismissal and monetary sums arising on termination, but those substantive issues were not determined in this judgment.

The tribunal accepted the respondent's account that an online ET3 had been completed on or about 3 November 2019, within the relevant time limit, but that it had gone astray. The judge held that the balance of prejudice favoured the respondent, because the ET3 contained averments which, if proved, could amount to a defence to all or part of the claim, and because it was in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time. The ET3 submitted on 3 November 2019 was therefore accepted, and a further hearing was to be fixed in due course to determine the issues between the parties.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Respondent's application for an extension of time to submit the ET3 succeeded. The tribunal accepted that the ET3 submitted on 3 November 2019 should be accepted late; the substantive unfair dismissal and monetary claims were not determined in this judgment.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.