Case 4100062/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Vincent Cairns v Maxi Haulage Ltd. — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100062/2023
- Decision date
- 12 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Vincent Cairns
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing in Glasgow on 5 April 2023, Employment Judge Tinnion considered Mr Vincent Cairns's unfair dismissal claim against Maxi Haulage Ltd under sections 94 to 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, but that it had not in fact been presented in time.
On that basis, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim under Rule 37(1)(a) on the ground of no prospect of success because of lack of jurisdiction. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the final hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, found that it was not presented in time, and struck it out under Rule 37(1)(a) for no prospect of success given lack of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- ss.94-98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 37(1)(a)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.