Case 4100051/2018 · Employment Tribunal
M Robison Mrs G Smith v Glasgow City Council — 2018
- Case reference
- 4100051/2018
- Decision date
- 15 June 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ms
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Robison Mrs G Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered jurisdiction only. The claimant had resigned on 10 August 2017, contacted ACAS on 8 November 2017, received an early conciliation certificate on 6 December 2017, and submitted her ET1 online on Sunday 7 January 2018. The Tribunal found that the relevant deadline expired on Saturday 6 January 2018 and that the claim was therefore one day late.
The claimant argued that rule 4(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules meant that, because the deadline fell on a non-working day, she had until the next working day to lodge the claim, and that in any event it was not reasonably practicable for her to lodge in time because she had reasonably misunderstood the law. The respondent argued that rule 4(2) did not extend the statutory limitation period and that online filing was available.
The Tribunal accepted the respondent's position. It held that the statutory time limit was not extended by rule 4(2), that documents sent electronically are deemed delivered on the day of transmission, and that the claimant's online submission on a Sunday showed that filing on a non-working day was possible. The Tribunal found that the claimant knew about her right to bring a claim and the relevant time limits, had made an honest mistake, but could have lodged earlier. It concluded that it was reasonably practicable for her to lodge in time and dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claim was described as unfair constructive dismissal. It was dismissed at a preliminary hearing because it was lodged out of time and the Tribunal was not satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable to lodge it in time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Walls Meat Company Ltd v Khan
- Consignia plc v Sealy
- rule 4(2) Employment Tribunals Rules
- rule 90 Employment Tribunals Rules
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.