Case 4103152/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. S MacLennan v ’s father Cocoa Mountain Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103152/2023
- Decision date
- 3 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. S MacLennan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the start of the 10 September 2024 hearing, Mrs MacLennan withdrew her complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages, failure to provide itemised pay statements, other payments, and unfair dismissal, and those complaints were dismissed under Rule 52. The only live issue left for determination was her breach of contract complaint about the respondent's alleged failure to offer her her full annualised hours entitlement.
The Tribunal held that the breach of contract claim was presented out of time. Employment ended on 13 December 2022, the primary limitation period expired on 12 March 2023, ACAS Early Conciliation ran from 10 March 2023 to 21 April 2023, and the final day to issue the claim was 21 May 2023. The claim was not presented until 6 June 2023. Applying the Article 7 reasonable practicability test, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, noting that the claimant and her father could have checked the position through ACAS, Citizens Advice, online sources, or legal advice, and that the evidence did not explain why they did not do so.
In the alternative, the Tribunal would have dismissed the breach claim on the merits. The claimant's contract required her to work no less than 1300 hours in each financial year, but did not fix daily or weekly hours. The respondent's business was seasonal, the claimant's hours were reduced by agreement after she asked to work fewer hours, and she was absent, left early, or was otherwise unavailable on a number of occasions. She resigned part-way through the financial year before the respondent had the opportunity to offer further work to make up any shortfall. The claimant said the shortfall was £2,889.90, but no damages were awarded because the claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages, including holiday pay and arrears of pay, was withdrawn by the claimant at the start of the hearing and dismissed under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Complaint of failure to provide itemised pay statements was withdrawn by the claimant at the start of the hearing and dismissed under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Complaint described as other payments was withdrawn by the claimant at the start of the hearing and dismissed under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of unfair dismissal was withdrawn by the claimant at the start of the hearing and dismissed under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed as out of time under Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994; the Tribunal also found, in the alternative, that no breach of contract was established. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- Article 7(a) and 7(c) of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
- not reasonably practicable
- reasonable period
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy
- London International College v Sen
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust v Williams
- Westward Circuits Ltd v Read
- Northumberland County Council v Thompson
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.