Case 4101959/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Tinnion Mr. James Leckie v The Lookout By Gardeners Cottage st and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 4101959/2020
- Decision date
- 13 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. A.
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Tinnion Mr. James Leckie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Edinburgh before Employment Judge Mr. A. Tinnion. The tribunal heard evidence and submissions from the claimant and the second respondent and decided preliminary issues under Rule 53(1)(b).
The tribunal found that the claimant's complaints of unlawful deduction from wages and wrongful dismissal/notice pay were presented outside the statutory time limits. It further found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented both complaints within those time limits.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction over either complaint and dismissed both claims. The judgment records that the reasons were given orally at the preliminary hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the complaint was presented outside the statutory time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal treated the notice pay complaint as a wrongful dismissal/notice pay complaint and held it was presented outside the statutory time limit, with no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.