Case 4107472/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D McLean v Not present or represented Quality Pork Processors Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4107472/2019
- Decision date
- 24 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D McLean
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D McLean brought a claim against Quality Pork Processors Limited that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed after a disciplinary hearing on 21 December 2018, with the effective date of termination said to be 28 December 2018. The respondent denied the claim and argued that it was out of time because the limitation period expired on 27 March 2019, before early conciliation began on 28 March 2019.
The claimant did not attend the hearing on 21 October 2019 and could not be contacted by telephone. Applying rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the tribunal had no information about why he was absent. It also noted that the claim was on its face time-barred and that the claimant had intended to argue that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, a matter on which the burden would have been on him.
The tribunal dismissed the claim. It also ordered the claimant to pay the respondent £1,700 in expenses, made up of £200 for the abortive attendance on 21 October 2019 and a £1,500 instruction fee.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was described as one of automatic unfair dismissal. The judgment does not identify a more specific statutory ground. It was dismissed after the claimant failed to attend, and the tribunal treated it as appearing to be out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- reasonably practicable
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.