Case 4104615/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kevin Simpson v Baker Hughes — 2024
- Case reference
- 4104615/2024
- Decision date
- 24 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kevin Simpson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningA preliminary hearing by video took place in Glasgow on 23 September 2024 before Employment Judge M Whitcombe. The tribunal recorded that the claimant, Mr Kevin Simpson, was represented by Mr S Lafferty and the respondent, Baker Hughes Limited, was represented by Ms C Low.
By consent, the tribunal found that the complaint of unfair dismissal had been presented outside the time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the tribunal held that the complaint fell outside the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal.
The tribunal did not dismiss the unfair dismissal complaint at that stage. It stated that the complaint would not be dismissed until the application for permission to amend the claim to add a complaint of disability discrimination had been decided. Oral reasons were given and no request was made for written reasons.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | By consent, the complaint was presented outside the time limit in section 111 ERA 1996 and therefore fell outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. The judgment also states that the complaint would not be dismissed until the application for permission to amend to add a disability discrimination complaint had been decided. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.