Case 4102455/2019 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Case No: 4102455/2019 Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Heard at Edinburgh on October 2019 at am Employment Judge J G d’Inverno, QVRM, TD, VR, WS Mr M Tamplin v Crossing Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4102455/2019
- Decision date
- 6 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge JG
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Case No: 4102455/2019 Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Heard at Edinburgh on October 2019 at am Employment Judge J G d’Inverno, QVRM, TD, VR, WS Mr M Tamplin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was determined at an open preliminary hearing in Edinburgh on 10 October 2019 before Employment Judge J G d’Inverno. The tribunal was asked to decide whether the claimant’s complaints were out of time. It found that employment began on 15 May 2018 and ended on 2 September 2018, and that the claim was first presented on 12 February 2019 after ACAS early conciliation had started on 14 December 2018.
The tribunal found that the claimant was pursuing statutory complaints about unpaid wages for July, August and 1-2 September 2018, including notice pay and accrued untaken annual leave, together with a statutory complaint about failure to provide written terms of employment and wage slips. It also treated the same unpaid wage and leave complaints, insofar as advanced on termination, as breach of contract claims.
The tribunal held that the relevant three-month time limits had expired before ACAS early conciliation began. On its findings, the wage-related statutory claims had to be brought by at the latest 4 November 2018, and the breach of contract claims by 1 December 2018. Because early conciliation was initiated only on 14 December 2018, the statutory time limits were not extended.
The claimant said he delayed because he believed the wages had been deferred by agreement until October 2018 and because he had made a loan to the respondent from the wages previously paid. The tribunal rejected that account, finding no agreement that suspended his entitlement to wages and noting that he had access to legal advice and information about the time limits. It concluded that he had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time, and dismissed the claims for lack of title to present and jurisdiction. The tribunal also noted that the separate £2,801 loan was not a free-standing claim before it.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Statutory section 13 complaint covering wages for July, August and 1-2 September 2018, notice pay and accrued untaken annual leave; dismissed at the preliminary hearing for lack of title to present and jurisdiction because the time limit had expired before ACAS early conciliation began. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Statutory complaint about failure to provide written terms of employment and wage slips; dismissed at the preliminary hearing for the same time-bar and jurisdiction reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Contractual claim for non-payment of wages and compensation for accrued but untaken paid annual leave on termination; dismissed because it was not presented within the three-month tribunal time limit and the claimant did not show that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 111(2)(a) ERA 1996
- section 111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- Article 7(a) of the Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
- Article 7(c) of the Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
- not reasonably practicable
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.