Case 4103510/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Gilmour v Mears Supported Living Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103510/2023
- Decision date
- 31 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Gilmour
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction and time bar. Mr Anthony Gilmour, represented by his wife Mrs Marie Gilmour, brought claims including unfair dismissal, notice pay as a breach of contract claim, and a statutory redundancy payment claim. The tribunal accepted that on 12 January 2023 the respondent emailed a dismissal letter stating that he had been summarily dismissed for gross misconduct with effect from that date, and a fuller reasons letter followed on 18 January 2023 confirming the same termination date. The tribunal also found that the P45 showed a leaving date of 12 January 2023, while 25 January 2023 was only the date the form was completed.
Applying s.97 and s.111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that the effective date of termination was 12 January 2023 and not 25 January 2023. It found that Mr Gilmour had a reasonable opportunity to read the dismissal email on the day it was sent, that the letters were clear, and that the P45 did not alter the statutory termination date. On that basis, the time limit for commencing proceedings expired before early conciliation began on 23 April 2023.
The tribunal accepted that both Mr and Mrs Gilmour had mental health difficulties and that Mrs Gilmour had genuinely but mistakenly focused on the date appearing on the P45. However, it found that it was not reasonably practicable to present the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims in time. The tribunal noted that Mrs Gilmour knew about early conciliation and time limits from an earlier unfair dismissal claim, that no legal advice was sought, and that no medical evidence was produced to support the extent of the difficulties relied on. It therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims for lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal held separately that the statutory redundancy payment claim was within time under the six-month limit in s.164 ERA 1996 and could proceed to a final hearing, while recording that the respondent disputed redundancy and maintained that the dismissal was for conduct rather than redundancy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claim was presented out of time and was not within the tribunal's jurisdiction under s.111 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the tribunal found the notice pay claim was out of time and not within jurisdiction under the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the statutory redundancy payment claim was in time and within jurisdiction, and that a final hearing should be fixed; no substantive entitlement decision was made in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- s.97 ERA 1996
- s.164 ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- Widdicombe v Longcombe Software Ltd
- Fitzgerald v University of Kent at Canterbury
- Newham London Borough v Ward
- Brown v Southall and Knight
- Gisda Cyf v Barratt
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend on Sea Borough Council
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy
- Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton
- Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Reed in Partnership v Fraine
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.