Case 4104247/2024 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Determination of the v MKP Estate Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 4104247/2024
- Decision date
- 22 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hosie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Determination of the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had been employed as a live-in gardener on the Pitcairlie Estate in Fife from 20 November 2023 to 24 January 2024 and was provided with tied accommodation. Building works began in January 2024, and on 24 January 2024 she asked to be moved out of the Gardener's Flat for a few weeks because the dust and mess were making her feel unwell and exhausted. Later that day the respondent ended her employment by written notice and one week's pay in lieu of notice, which the tribunal found matched both the statutory and contractual notice entitlement for a period of service of less than two years.
The main issue before the tribunal was the claimant's opposed application of 17 July 2024 for leave to amend her ET1. The proposed amendment would replace a pleaded section 103A whistleblowing unfair dismissal complaint with a section 100(1)(e) ERA 1996 unfair dismissal complaint based on danger at work and the request for temporary alternative accommodation. The tribunal held that this was not a mere relabelling exercise: the original ET1 expressly pleaded a section 103A claim, while the proposed amendment introduced a distinct statutory basis and jurisdiction. The tribunal also noted that the primary time limit, as extended by early conciliation, expired on 17 May 2024, so the proposed claim was out of time.
Applying Selkent, Transport and General Workers Union v Safeway Stores Limited, and Chandhok v Tirkey, the tribunal concluded that time should not be extended. It accepted that the claimant had legal advice from the outset and had all relevant facts available when the ET1 was presented, so it was reasonably practicable for the section 100(1)(e) complaint to have been raised in time. The tribunal said any complaint about poor legal advice would lie elsewhere and not justify amendment in these proceedings. Balancing hardship and injustice, it refused leave to amend.
Separately, the claimant withdrew her original section 103A automatic unfair dismissal complaint and her wrongful dismissal / breach of contract notice pay complaint during the hearing. The tribunal recorded that the notice pay had already been paid and dismissed those claims following withdrawal. With the amendment refused and the remaining claims withdrawn, there were no residual matters for determination.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claimant withdrew her wrongful dismissal / non-payment of notice pay claim after accepting she had received one week's pay in lieu of notice; the tribunal dismissed it following withdrawal under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Application for leave to amend to a section 100(1)(e) ERA 1996 unfair dismissal complaint was refused; the tribunal held the proposed claim was a new out-of-time claim and that time should not be extended. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant withdrew her previously pled section 103A ERA 1996 automatic unfair dismissal complaint during the hearing; the tribunal dismissed it following withdrawal under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore [1996] IRLR 661
- Transport and General Workers Union v Safeway Stores Limited UKEAT/009/07
- Chandhok v Tirkey [2015] IRLR 195
- not reasonably practicable
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.