Case 4103832/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Cairney v Cathkin Clean Scotland Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4103832/2020
- Decision date
- 23 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Cairney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Cairney presented an unfair dismissal claim against Cathkin Clean Scotland Limited on 22 July 2020 after his employment ended on 9 January 2020. The tribunal treated the matter as a preliminary issue because the claim appeared to be out of time. It found that the normal three-month time limit expired on 8 April 2020, but that the ACAS early conciliation certificate extended the deadline to 28 April 2020.
The claimant knew about the time limit and had obtained advice from CAB and then the Strathclyde Law Clinic. He said he delayed because, after the national lockdown on 23 March 2020, he believed the courts were closed based on news reports, and he assumed that the Employment Tribunal would therefore not be dealing with claims. The tribunal accepted that this was his reason, but found that he made no enquiry of the tribunal itself, even though the tribunal remained open throughout lockdown for administration of claims and contact with the public.
Applying section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the question of whether it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, the tribunal held that it was possible for the claimant to have checked the position before 28 April 2020 and that it was reasonable to expect him to do so. It was not satisfied that it had been not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the time limit. The result was that the tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claim was presented out of time and that it was not satisfied that it had been not reasonably practicable to present it within the statutory period. It therefore concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable test
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.