Case 4102809/2016 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102809/2016 Preliminary Hearing at Edinburgh on August 2017 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Ella Carrera
At the preliminary hearing on 1 August 2017, the tribunal dealt only with whether OMI Facilities Ltd should be allowed to present its ET3 late and whether the claimant should have judgment entered in her favour. The respondent said it had not received the ET1 at its registered address and only learned of the proceedings in late May 2017, after which it instructed Mr Carlin promptly.
The tribunal rejected the explanation for the late response. It found Mr Bains was not a particularly impressive witness, that his evidence about the company's registered address and mail forwarding was self-contradictory, and that he gave an unsatisfactory account of how an English solicitor had alerted him to the claim. The tribunal concluded that the explanation was neither accurate nor reasonable and that it would not be in the interests of justice to allow the ET3 about 10 months late.
The ET3 extension application was refused, the claimant's application for judgment succeeded, and the case was listed for a remedy hearing. The tribunal expressly said it reached no conclusions at this hearing about whether there had been a TUPE transfer or about disability discrimination.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment determined only the respondent's application to have its ET3 accepted out of time and the claimant's application for judgment. The respondent's application was refused and the claimant's claim against the respondent was allowed to proceed to a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
The 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.
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.