Case 4101861/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N McIntyre v Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 4101861/2023
- Decision date
- 1 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Mackay
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N McIntyre
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing to decide whether the claimant's claims had been presented out of time and, if so, whether they should be accepted late. The claimant had resigned on 29 November 2022, contacted ACAS on 16 December 2022, and submitted a claim on 24 February 2023. That claim was rejected because the last two digits of the early conciliation certificate numbers were omitted.
The Tribunal found the claimant credible and reliable. It accepted that she had made a minor technical error, had no professional representation for the tribunal claim, was dealing with an NMC referral, was working 12-hour shifts, and was genuinely confused by the tribunal correspondence. Although it would have been possible to resubmit a corrected claim before the deadline, the Tribunal held that it was reasonable in the circumstances for her to seek clarification and await a response.
The Tribunal held that, for claims where time runs from the effective date of termination, it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time and that the corrected claim was presented within a further reasonable period. Questions about whether any whistleblowing detriment or Working Time Regulations claims should run from earlier dates, and the correct employing entity, were reserved for the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Preliminary hearing on time limits only. For claims where time runs from the effective date of termination, including constructive unfair dismissal, the Tribunal held it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and that it was presented within a further reasonable period. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary hearing on time limits only. The claimant brought claims of detriments and automatic unfair dismissal on the grounds of protected disclosures. Automatic unfair dismissal, insofar as time runs from the effective date of termination, was allowed to proceed on the time-limit issue. Any time-bar issue for earlier detriment allegations was left to be determined after evidence at the final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Preliminary hearing on time limits only. The claimant alleged breach of the Working Time Regulations in relation to rest breaks or compensatory rest continuing to resignation. To the extent any Working Time Regulations claim depends on an earlier commencement date, time bar was left to be determined after evidence at the final hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer & Saunders v Southend on Sea Borough Council
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Marks & Spencer Plc v Williams-Ryan
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy
- Howlett Marine Services Ltd v Bowlam
- Adams v British Telecommunications plc
- Rule 12(2ZA)
- Benjamin-Cole v Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children Trust
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust v Williams
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.