Case 2500413/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Scott v Insight Safety Limited Heard: Remotely (by video) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2500413/2021
- Decision date
- 2 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Scott
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing by video on 6 September 2021, Employment Judge S Shore dealt with Mr I Scott's unfair dismissal claim and his claim for unauthorised deduction of wages, described in the judgment as failure to pay holiday pay. Both claims were struck out on limitation grounds. The tribunal found that each claim had not been presented within the relevant three-month period, including any pause for early conciliation, beginning with the date of the last alleged deduction.
For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and concluded that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time. For the wages claim, the tribunal applied sections 23(2)(a) and 23(3)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and reached the same conclusion. The result was that neither claim proceeded beyond the preliminary stage.
The written record notes that the hearing was remote, by video, because of the Covid-19 pandemic, and that reasons were given orally at the hearing. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not present the claim within the three-month period, including any pause for early conciliation, beginning with the date of the last alleged deduction, when it was reasonably practicable for him to have done so, under section 111(2) ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out because the claimant did not present the claim within the three-month period, including any pause for early conciliation, beginning with the date of the last alleged deduction, when it was reasonably practicable for him to have done so; the judgment describes this as a claim for unauthorised deduction of wages (failure to pay holiday pay). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 111(2) ERA 1996
- sections 23(2)(a) and 23(3)(a) ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable
- three-month period including any pause in calculating time due to early conciliation
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.