Case 4105122/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105122/2022 (V) Held at Aberdeen on February 2023 Employment Judge N M Hosie iO Miss T Bello v Deeside Care LLP/Rowan Court Care Home — 2023
- Case reference
- 4105122/2022
- Decision date
- 14 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105122/2022 (V) Held at Aberdeen on February 2023 Employment Judge N M Hosie iO Miss T Bello
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge N M Hosie in Aberdeen on 9 February 2023. The only issues determined were whether the claim was out of time and whether the tribunal had jurisdiction. The respondent had taken a time-bar point in its ET3 response, but at the hearing counsel for the respondent conceded that, on review of the papers, the claim form had in fact been submitted in time and that the tribunal had jurisdiction.
The tribunal recorded that the effective date of termination was 27 May 2022, ACAS received the early conciliation notification on 7 July 2022, the ACAS certificate was issued on 15 August 2022, and the claim form was submitted on 29 September 2022. Applying s.207B(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal accepted counsel's explanation that the relevant deadline was 4 October 2022, so subsection (4) did not apply. The tribunal therefore held that the claim was timeous and that it had jurisdiction to consider it. The case was to proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that the claim was timeous and that it had jurisdiction to consider it; the substantive claim was not determined at this hearing and was allowed to proceed to a final hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.207B(3) 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.