Case 4107798/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Tinnion Mr. Liam Power v , Solicitor UPS Ltd. — 2021
- Case reference
- 4107798/2020
- Decision date
- 10 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. A.
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Tinnion Mr. Liam Power
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Glasgow on 30 April 2021 before Employment Judge Mr. A. Tinnion, with oral evidence from the Claimant, Mr. Richard Power, and Mr. Gavin Hunter, and oral submissions from Miss Page for the Claimant and Mr. Miller for the Respondent. The tribunal determined preliminary issues under Rule 53(1)(b).
The tribunal found that the Claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal had been presented outside the applicable statutory time limit. It also found that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have presented the complaint within that time limit.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction over the unfair dismissal complaint and dismissed it. The written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal’s note.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as a preliminary issue because the complaint was presented outside the applicable statutory time limit and it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time, so the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 53(1)(b)
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.