Case 4106918/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Traynor v Represented by Ms C Bergin - Mother Airdrie Motorist Centre Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 4106918/2023
- Decision date
- 11 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Traynor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for Airdrie Motorist Centre Ltd from 27 February 2023 until his dismissal on 12 June 2023. The tribunal found that the claim form was not properly presented in time: after ACAS early conciliation, the claimant had until 29 October 2023 to lodge the claim, but although an initial claim was lodged on 18 October 2023 it was rejected because the respondent was misnamed, and the corrected claim was not lodged until 8 November 2023. Applying the reasonable practicability test, and the authorities it cited including Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy, the tribunal held that the later mistake in reading the rejection letter was not reasonable, so it had no jurisdiction to determine the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Wrongful dismissal was pleaded as a breach of contract claim. The tribunal held the claim was presented out of time and, in any event, that no valid contract of apprenticeship had been entered into or validly bound the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- reasonable practicability test
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy
- Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
- Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Chassis and Cab Specialists Ltd v Lee
- Flett v Matheson
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.