Case 4100847/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Shaun Collins v No appearance and No representation Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4100847/2022
- Decision date
- 5 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Shaun Collins
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Shaun Collins presented a complaint of unfair dismissal on 31 January 2022, alleging that he had been constructively unfairly dismissed on 31 July 2020. The tribunal noted that an ACAS certificate was issued on 17 November 2020 and recorded the date of ACAS notification as 7 October 2021. On that basis, the claim was outside the statutory three-month time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The hearing was fixed as a preliminary hearing to decide jurisdiction and whether the time limit should be extended. The claimant did not attend. The tribunal recorded that it had been satisfied he had been notified of the hearing and sent the means to join by CVP, but there was no explanation for his absence. The respondents were represented by counsel and had also applied to strike out the claim, although that application only fell to be considered if jurisdiction existed.
The tribunal held that the burden was on the claimant to show that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and that it was lodged within a reasonable period thereafter. In the claimant's absence there was no evidence before the tribunal to support any extension of time, and nothing in the ET1 explained why time should be extended. The tribunal therefore concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim and that the claim would not proceed further.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction because the unfair dismissal claim was presented outwith the statutory time limit. It found there was no evidence to justify an extension of time on the basis that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 111 ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- reasonable period thereafter
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.