Case 4106293/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Harris v Arjowiggins Scotland Ltd (in administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 4106293/2023
- Decision date
- 26 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Harris
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs R Harris brought complaints of unfair dismissal and for a protective award in terms of section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 against Arjowiggins Scotland Ltd (in administration). The respondent was not present or represented at the CVP hearing in Glasgow on 20 February 2024.
Employment Judge D Hoey held that both complaints had been lodged out of time. The tribunal further found that it had been reasonably practicable for the complaints to have been lodged within the relevant time limit. On that basis, the tribunal was unable to hear the complaints and dismissed the claim. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint was lodged out of time and that it had been reasonably practicable for it to have been lodged within the relevant time limit, so it was unable to hear the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Protective award complaint in terms of section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal found it was lodged out of time and that it had been reasonably practicable for it to have been lodged within the relevant time limit, so it was unable to hear the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.