Case 4102958/2020 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102958/2020 (V) Held by video on November 2020 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mr C Juweh v Wilson James Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4102958/2020
- Decision date
- 11 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alexander Meiklejohn
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102958/2020 (V) Held by video on November 2020 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mr C Juweh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal and unlawful discrimination against Wilson James Ltd. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by a consultant.
The Tribunal held that both complaints had been presented out of time. On that basis, it found that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaints and dismissed them. Reasons were delivered orally at the hearing, with written reasons to be provided only if requested within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was dismissed because it had been presented out of time and the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to complaints of 'unlawful discrimination' but does not identify the protected characteristic in the judgment text. The complaint was dismissed because it had been presented out of time and the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with it. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.