Case 4100575/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Louise Crowhurst v Leisure Employment Services Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100575/2020
- Decision date
- 29 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sutherland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Louise Crowhurst
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Louise Crowhurst was employed as a Leisure Manager from 1 February 2012 until her employment was terminated with effect from 26 August 2019. The tribunal recorded that she was dismissed for stated gross misconduct, but the only issue for decision was limitation for her unfair dismissal claim, which was lodged on 30 January 2020. Applying the ACAS early conciliation provisions, the tribunal held that the primary time limit expired on 4 January 2020, so the claim was presented 26 days late.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had suffered some deterioration in mental health after dismissal, including a diagnosis of depression and anxiety in November 2019, but found that by mid-November her mental health had improved sufficiently for her to commence early conciliation and start a new job. It also found that she knew she had a right to bring an unfair dismissal claim, had access to and regularly used the internet, and did not take steps to check the time limit until she contacted solicitors toward the end of December or early January. After receiving the ACAS certificate on 4 December 2019 she still did not make timely enquiries or take steps to issue proceedings.
The tribunal therefore held that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the primary limitation period. In consequence, it did not need to decide whether the claim had been brought within a further reasonable period, and the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as out of time: the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the primary time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.97 ERA 1996
- s.207B(3) ERA 1996
- s.207B(4) ERA 1996
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend on Sea Borough Council
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd
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.