Case 4103946/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Christopher Elliott v Joan Tranent — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103946/2023
- Decision date
- 25 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Bradley
- Venue
- person in Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Christopher Elliott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningChristopher Elliott began employment with Midlothian Council on 2 October 2017 and later moved into a Learning Assistant role at Vogrie Country Park, with that post starting on 19 December 2022. He resigned by letter dated 17 April 2023, with an effective date of termination of 15 May 2023. At the hearing he confirmed that the only claim was unfair (constructive) dismissal, and that the reference in his ET1 to health and safety, pay, and a complaint investigation was background only; he also confirmed that he was not bringing a discrimination claim.
The tribunal found that the first ET1 presented on 27 July 2023 was rejected because the claimant had not completed ACAS early conciliation before instituting proceedings. He then started early conciliation on 7 August 2023, received three ACAS certificates on 18 September 2023, and the one-month extension under section 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 meant the time limit expired on 18 October 2023. The later ET1 was treated as presented on 29 November 2023, so it was outside the extended time limit.
Applying section 111(2) and section 111(2A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, together with the reasonable practicability test, the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented by 18 October 2023. It found that the claimant knew of his right to claim by 27 July 2023, knew of the ACAS requirement by 1 August 2023, and knew by early August of the basic time limit and the extension following early conciliation. The tribunal did not accept that moving house, a new job, family illness, or a holiday provided a reasonable excuse for the delay. It also observed that there was no factual or statutory basis for an unfair dismissal claim against Joan Tranent or Heather Fleming, because the claimant was employed only by Midlothian Council, though it did not need to decide strike-out separately. The claim was dismissed and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claimant confirmed this was his only claim. The tribunal treated it as an unfair (constructive) dismissal claim and dismissed it for being presented out of time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.111(2A) ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- reasonable practicability
- s.210(5) ERA 1996 continuity presumption
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy
- Fitzgerald v University of Kent at Canterbury
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.