Case 4100566/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S McAvoy v Blue Triangle Housing Association — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100566/2020
- Decision date
- 18 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S McAvoy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on limitation only. Ms McAvoy brought an unfair dismissal claim against Blue Triangle Housing Association. The tribunal found that her employment ended on 22 September 2019, and that ACAS early conciliation extended the ordinary three-month time limit to 20 January 2020. Her tribunal claim was presented on 29 January 2020, so it was late.
The tribunal accepted that Ms McAvoy had been signed off work with stress from around 9 July 2019 and that she continued to experience stress, depression and anxiety. It also accepted that being accused of misconduct, going through disciplinary proceedings, losing her job, and the financial consequences were all stressful for her. However, it found that her condition did not stop her from engaging with the disciplinary process, appealing the dismissal, contacting ACAS, and looking for other work.
Applying the section 111 ERA 1996 limitation test, the tribunal considered whether it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. It relied on authorities including Porter v Bandridge Ltd and Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser, and noted the need to assess whether, on the facts found, it was reasonable to expect what was possible to have been done. The tribunal found that Ms McAvoy had trade union assistance, had looked at ACAS guidance, and knew by November 2019 that her claim had to be in by 20 January.
The tribunal rejected her position that ACAS had advised it would pursue the matter for her. It found that any belief to that effect arose from her own misunderstanding of the conversation with the ACAS officer, not from misadvice by ACAS. It concluded that it was possible and reasonable for the claim to have been presented in time, so it did not need to consider the second limb of the statutory test. As a result, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal claim and the proceedings ended.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at preliminary hearing because the claim was presented outside the extended time limit under s.111 ERA 1996 and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- s.18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- two-stage approach
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- DHL Supply Chain v Fazackerley
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.