Case 4102857/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Stephen Martin v Balfour Beatty Group Employment Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4102857/2023
- Decision date
- 28 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Stephen Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered time-limit issues affecting the claimant's claims. It held that the claim for a statutory redundancy payment under ss.163-164 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 had been presented in time, so that claim would proceed to a final merits hearing.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim under ss.94-98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not presented in time, in circumstances where it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. It struck out that claim under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal reached the same conclusion on the breach of contract claim, described as wrongful dismissal/notice pay. That claim was also struck out under Rule 37(1)(a). The judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing, with written reasons to be provided only if requested within the stated period or by an appeal tribunal or court.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal decided the statutory redundancy payment claim under ss.163-164 Employment Rights Act 1996 was presented in time and that it would proceed to a final merits hearing; the merits were not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim under ss.94-98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not presented in time, and that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. It was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a breach of contract claim for wrongful dismissal/notice pay. The tribunal held it was not presented in time, and that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. It was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- ss.163-164 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ss.94-98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Rule 37(1)(a)
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.