Case 4102210/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Glasgow Homecare Ltd T/a Home Instead — 2023
- Case reference
- 4102210/2023
- Decision date
- 15 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
- Venue
- Glasgow remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Fiona Gibbons brought claims against Glasgow Homecare Ltd trading as Home Instead Glasgow South for unfair dismissal, breach of contract/notice pay, and outstanding holiday pay. At the preliminary hearing on 12 June 2023, Employment Judge A Kemp considered whether the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims were in time, in light of the effective date of termination agreed by the parties as 15 December 2022 and the timing of early conciliation and presentation of the claim form.
The tribunal held that it had not been shown that it was not reasonably practicable to commence early conciliation by 14 March 2023. It found that the claimant's solicitor, Ms Ramiza Mohammed, should have checked the dismissal date earlier, particularly after the appeal decision on 2 February 2023 and once settlement negotiations ended on 27 February 2023. The tribunal accepted that Ms Mohammed's daughter was seriously ill from around 6 March 2023 and that this caused distress, but found that Ms Mohammed still had some capacity to work, could access her laptop at home, and could have started early conciliation herself or asked colleagues or the claimant to do so.
The tribunal also held, in the alternative, that the claim was not presented within a reasonable period after any delay in starting early conciliation. It treated the defects in the first claim form, including naming Ms Mohammed instead of the claimant and omitting the early conciliation certificate number, as material. Although an amended claim form was later accepted and treated as presented on 27 March 2023, the tribunal found that the additional delay of about a week was not reasonable in the circumstances.
As a result, the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal separately recorded that the holiday pay claim was within its jurisdiction and would proceed to a final hearing, but it made no decision on the merits of that claim at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to commence early conciliation in time and, in any event, the claim was not presented within a reasonable period thereafter. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the same time-bar reasoning as the unfair dismissal claim; the notice pay claim fell within the Scotland Order but was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal accepted that the outstanding holiday pay claim was within jurisdiction and said it would proceed to a Final Hearing; no merits decision was made at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- reasonably practicable test
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend on Sea Borough Council
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Agrico Ltd v Ireland
- Ebay (UK) Ltd v Buzzeo
- Howlett Marine Services Ltd v Bowlam
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Company 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.