Case 4107581/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Terence Ballantyne v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 4107581/2017
- Decision date
- 15 May 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Terence Ballantyne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a claim alleging unfair dismissal on 8 December 2017, with dismissal said to have taken place on 28 March 2014. The respondent raised preliminary issues about the absence of an ACAS early conciliation certificate and timebar. The claimant later obtained an early conciliation certificate on 26 February 2018 after receiving a Rule 27 notice.
The Tribunal considered Rule 10 of the Employment Tribunal Rules and section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act, and accepted the respondent's submission that early conciliation had to take place before the claim was presented. The Tribunal held that the later production of a certificate did not cure the earlier defect.
The Tribunal decided it had no jurisdiction to determine the claim and dismissed it. The judgment recorded that it remained open to the claimant to present another claim form based on the certificate obtained in February, and that any further claim would require a preliminary hearing on timebar.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction where the claimant did not have an ACAS early conciliation certificate before presenting the claim. The substantive unfair dismissal allegation was not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 10 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 27 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 18A Employment Tribunals Act
- Cranwell v Cullen UKEATS/0046/14
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.