Case 4107907/2024 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107907/2024 Held on March 2025 by CVP Employment Judge N M Hosie Mrs J Cruickshank v Represented by: Mr J Robertson, International Fraud & Investigation Services Ltd Construction Industry Training Board — 2018
- Case reference
- 4107907/2024
- Decision date
- 14 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107907/2024 Held on March 2025 by CVP Employment Judge N M Hosie Mrs J Cruickshank
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs J Cruickshank presented a new ET1 on 29 December 2024. She described it as a whistleblowing complaint and also asked the tribunal to set aside a COT3 agreement dated 22 October 2018 and the resulting dismissal judgment so that the original 2016 claims could proceed again. The earlier case had involved unfair dismissal, direct sex discrimination, harassment related to sex, and victimisation; it settled through ACAS in 2018 for £60,090.50, together with an apology and other agreed terms.
The tribunal held that the complaint of misrepresentation did not disclose an actionable misrepresentation. What was alleged was, in substance, that the claimant felt pressured by her legal team and the risk of expenses into signing the COT3. The tribunal noted that she had been legally represented throughout the 2016 case, had obtained Counsel's opinion, had made an offer of £50,000 before settling for more than £60,000, and had signed a detailed written agreement containing a broad discharge of claims. It also noted that there had been no written application to reconsider the 2018 dismissal judgment within 14 days; the only application was an oral one at the hearing on 13 March 2025, more than six years later.
The tribunal struck out the new case under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 as having no reasonable prospect of success. It said that, even if it had been necessary to decide the point, the case would also have been struck out under Rule 38(1)(e) because it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing: the last underlying allegation was in 2015, the passage of time would affect the evidence, witnesses and documents may be difficult to trace, and the respondent would face prejudice. The tribunal also noted that ACAS was not notified of the new case until 10 December 2024, after the representative had first written to the tribunal on 30 May 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The new ET1 alleged whistleblowing and also sought to set aside the 22 October 2018 COT3 and the resulting dismissal judgment so that the earlier claims could proceed; the tribunal struck out the case under Rule 38(1)(a). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- misrepresentation
- Rule 38(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- Rule 38(1)(e) no longer possible to have a fair hearing
- Rule 69 reconsideration
- Rule 70(4) reconsideration
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.