Case 4107326/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Barbour v Lloyds Bank plc — 2019
- Case reference
- 4107326/2019
- Decision date
- 24 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Cowen
- Venue
- the Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Barbour
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered a preliminary issue of whether the claims had been brought in time. The Claimant's employment ended on 29 November 2010 at the latest, and his ET1 was presented on 13 June 2019. The claims before the Tribunal were unfair dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay, unlawful deductions from wages, and public interest disclosure detriments and dismissal.
The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant had significant mental ill health around the time of dismissal and in early 2011. It found that the original time limit expired on 28 February 2011 and that it was not reasonably practicable for him to bring the claims by that date, given his condition and difficulty coping with day-to-day activities.
The Tribunal then considered whether the claims had been presented within a reasonable further period. It found that the Claimant was able to instruct solicitors and pursue personal injury litigation in the Court of Session by 25 April 2012, and that those tasks were comparable to what would have been needed to bring an Employment Tribunal claim. The Tribunal concluded that it would have been reasonably practicable for him to bring the Tribunal claim on or around 25 April 2012, and therefore the 13 June 2019 claim was out of time and outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time. It did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal allegation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim was included among the claims before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time and did not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was included among the claims before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time and did not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deductions from wages claim was included among the claims before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time and did not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The Claimant claimed public interest disclosure detriments and dismissal. The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time and did not determine whether protected disclosures, detriments, or dismissal for that reason were established. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Palmer and another v Southend on Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372
- Marks and Spencer v Williams-Ryan [2005] EWCA Civ 470
- Norbert Dentressangle Logistics Ltd v Hutton 2013 WL 5905564
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.