Case 4102249/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Bradley Donaldson v Bear Scotland Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4102249/2020
- Decision date
- 22 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R King
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Bradley Donaldson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Bradley Donaldson, brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Bear Scotland Limited. The tribunal heard evidence only from the claimant, found him to be candid and credible, and accepted that he had been employed from 15 February 2016 until 20 January 2020, when he was dismissed for gross misconduct. It also accepted that he sought advice from Citizens Advice on the day of dismissal and was told about the three-month time limit and the need to complete ACAS early conciliation before issuing a claim.
The tribunal found that the claimant pursued an internal appeal, which was heard in late February 2020 and rejected on 27 March 2020. By that point the national lockdown had begun on 23 March 2020, and the claimant assumed that the lockdown prevented him from contacting ACAS. He did not seek further advice, make any online or telephone enquiry to ACAS, or otherwise check whether the early conciliation process was available. He eventually contacted ACAS and presented his claim on 23 April 2020.
Applying section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the reasonable practicability test, the tribunal held that the effective date of termination remained 20 January 2020 and that the claimant should have contacted ACAS by 19 April 2020. It accepted that the claimant had followed incorrect advice to wait for the appeal outcome, but held that, under Dedman, any mistake by the adviser was attributable to the claimant. The tribunal also found that by 27 March 2020 there was still sufficient time to contact ACAS before the limitation period expired.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant had not taken reasonable steps to ascertain the true position about the effect of lockdown on ACAS or the time limit. Because he did not make reasonable enquiries and instead proceeded on an assumption, it was reasonably practicable for him to present the claim in time. The tribunal therefore held that the claim was out of time, lacked jurisdiction to hear it, and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim without reaching the merits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claim was presented out of time and that it had been reasonably practicable to contact ACAS and commence proceedings within the statutory period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonable practicability test
- Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy
- Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
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.