Case 4103655/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Ferguson v Skymore RVs Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4103655/2020
- Decision date
- 9 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Ferguson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on limitation only. Mr Ferguson began work for Skymore RVs Ltd around July 2018 as a mechanic and was dismissed with effect from 18 December 2019. The judgment records that he had withdrawn an ordinary unfair dismissal claim because he did not have two years' service, but he still pursued a dismissal claim said to arise under ss.100 and 103A ERA 1996, arrears of pay, and disability discrimination.
The tribunal found that the ET1 was not lodged by the end of the relevant time limit. The claimant contacted ACAS on 4 February 2020, received an EC certificate on 18 March 2020, and emailed the ET1 to ACAS on 23 March 2020 believing that this was the correct route. He did not realise the mistake until the end of June 2020, when he contacted ACAS again and then sent the ET1 to the Employment Tribunal by recorded delivery with a covering letter dated 2 July 2020; it was accepted as presented on 6 July 2020. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's ADHD and other mental health difficulties, together with the early Covid-19 lockdown and his belief that court business was at a standstill, were relevant to the delay.
Applying section 111(2)(b) ERA 1996 and the guidance in Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy, the tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the dismissal claim in time and that he did so within a reasonable period thereafter. Applying section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 and the broader just-and-equitable discretion, it also extended time for the disability discrimination claim, taking into account the short delay, the medical evidence, the fact that the respondent had already been involved in ACAS conciliation, and the claimant's unrepresented status. The judgment notes that disability status was not yet conceded and that knowledge issues would be considered later.
The case was therefore allowed to proceed to a further case management preliminary hearing. No merits findings were made and no remedy was awarded at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary time-bar ruling only. The judgment says the claimant had withdrawn an ordinary unfair dismissal claim but continued to pursue a dismissal claim said to arise under ss.100 and 103A ERA 1996; the tribunal held the claim could proceed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to 'arrears of pay' and, more generally, 'any other wages claims', but does not identify the statutory basis more specifically. The tribunal held any such claim was not out of time. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal extended time on a just-and-equitable basis. This hearing did not decide the merits or whether the respondent knew of the disability. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- Keeble factors
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
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.