Case 3308098/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Cuthbertson v Oakland International — 2024
- Case reference
- 3308098/2023
- Decision date
- 18 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richard Wood
- Venue
- via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Cuthbertson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Richard Wood sat alone at a CVP hearing on 1 March 2024. The claimant was Mr S Cuthbertson and the respondent was Oakland International. The judgment records that all claims were dismissed at the jurisdiction stage because they were brought out of time.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim for health and safety detriment under section 44(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the claim for public disclosure detriment under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the claim for direct age discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, and the claim for age-related harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. In each instance, the stated reason was that the claim was out of time and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it.
No merits findings are recorded, and no remedy or award is set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for health and safety detriment under section 44(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Dismissed because it was brought out of time and the Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim for public disclosure detriment under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Dismissed because it was brought out of time and the Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination claim under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. Dismissed because it was brought out of time and the Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Age-related harassment claim under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. Dismissed because it was brought out of time and the Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | Age | — |
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.