Case 4105405/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105405/2023 (V) Held at Aberdeen on February 2024 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr Leslie Munro v Represented by, Ms E Matheson, Solicitor Highland Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 4105405/2023
- Decision date
- 4 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105405/2023 (V) Held at Aberdeen on February 2024 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr Leslie Munro
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Leslie Munro brought complaints of standard unfair dismissal under s.94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and automatic unfair dismissal because he had made a protected disclosure under s.103A. The preliminary hearing concerned only whether the ET1 was time-barred. The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on 4 May 2023, that ACAS early conciliation ran from 14 July 2023 to 14 August 2023, and that his solicitor attempted to submit the claim online on 14 September 2023 during HMCTS online submission problems before attending the Glasgow Employment Tribunal at 18:25 the same day with the claim in a sealed envelope.
Applying s.111(2) ERA 1996 and the early conciliation extension in s.207B, the tribunal held that the claim was presented in time when the solicitor handed it to the security guard at the tribunal office, even though the envelope was refused. It relied on the authorities it cited, including Consignia, Miah, Hammond and Post Office v Moore, for the proposition that presentation occurs when the claim arrives at the tribunal office and does not require acceptance by tribunal staff.
In the alternative, the tribunal held that if presentation had not occurred on 14 September 2023, there was no proper means of presentation in the particular circumstances because the online system was unavailable and hand delivery was refused; the limitation period could therefore extend to the next working day, when the claim was delivered and accepted on 15 September 2023. The tribunal further recorded that, if necessary, it would have found that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim earlier and that it had been presented within a reasonable period, so jurisdiction existed and the case was to proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing on time bar only; the tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was presented in time and that it had jurisdiction to consider the claim, but it did not determine the merits. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary hearing on time bar only; the tribunal held the protected disclosure/automatic unfair dismissal element was presented in time and that it had jurisdiction to consider the claim, but it did not determine the merits. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- reasonable practicability
- no proper means for presentation
- Miah v Axis Security Services Ltd
- Consignia v Russell Sealy
- Hammond v Haigh Castle & Co Ltd
- Post Office v Moore
- Initial Electronic Security Systems Ltd v Avdic
- Tyne and Wear Autistic Society v Smith
- Swainston v Hetdon Victory Club Ltd
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.