Case 4100576/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Sharp v Kelvin Decorators Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 4100576/2025
- Decision date
- 30 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Sharp
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the public preliminary hearing in Glasgow on 23 June 2025, Employment Judge Tinnion heard Mr I Sharp’s unfair dismissal claim against Kelvin Decorators Limited. The respondent was represented by Mr A. Johnston, Director. The judgment records only the limitation issue for the unfair dismissal claim under ss.94-98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the claim was not presented in time. It further found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim did not proceed and was dismissed.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment. The decision was sent to the parties on 30 June 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim under ss.94-98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not presented in time and that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- ss.94-98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.