Case 2407351/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I MacFarlane v GMB Trade Union — 2026
- Case reference
- 2407351/2024
- Decision date
- 23 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Peck
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I MacFarlane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr MacFarlane brought a complaint under section 64 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 alleging that GMB Trade Union had unjustifiably disciplined him by depriving him of access to benefits, services or facilities of membership. The alleged discipline was the respondent's refusal to provide help, support, advice, guidance, or legal assistance in relation to litigation against his employer. The claimant was not pursuing breach of contract, bad faith, or professional negligence claims.
The tribunal held that time ran from the making of the determination alleged to infringe the right. It rejected the claimant's argument that there was a rolling or continuing detriment up to 4 July 2024. The tribunal found that the respondent's final decision not to provide litigation support had been communicated by 15 August 2023 at the latest, including by an email from Denise Walker stating that legal assistance would not be provided and that the matter was closed. Later non-engagement was treated as the continuing consequence of that decision, not a new determination.
The claim was presented on 27 November 2024, after ACAS early conciliation began on 24 September 2024 and ended on 28 October 2024. The tribunal found that the claim was not presented within three months of 15 August 2023, even allowing for early conciliation. It also found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the complaint in time: he knew about tribunal claims, had awareness of limitation issues, and could have made enquiries or sought legal advice.
The tribunal was satisfied that the delay was not wholly or partly attributable to a reasonable attempt to appeal, reconsider, or review the determination. It also found that the claim was not brought within a further reasonable period, given the significant delay and absence of exceptional circumstances. The section 64 claim was therefore struck out under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 as having no reasonable prospects of success. No remedy was awarded, and the listed case management hearing was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The section 64 TULRCA complaint that the claimant was unjustifiably disciplined was struck out under rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospects of success, having been brought out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.64 TULRCA 1992
- s.66 TULRCA 1992
- rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- NALGO v Killorn and Simm
- Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton
- Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James
- Balls v Downham Market High School & College
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.