Case 4108450/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Shawny O’Donnell v R n R Cumbernauld Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4108450/2021
- Decision date
- 5 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Shawny O’Donnell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the CVP hearing on 25 June 2021, Employment Judge Smith held that Miss Shawny O’Donnell’s claims had been lodged outside the applicable time limits. The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have lodged them in time.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims. The judgment therefore dismissed the claims without any merits determination.
No monetary remedy was awarded and the judgment does not record any compensation, basic award, or interest. The written reasons section notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held the claim was lodged outside the applicable time limits and that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have presented it in time, so it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claim was lodged outside the applicable time limits and that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have presented it in time, so it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal held the claim was lodged outside the applicable time limits and that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have presented it in time, so it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | This entry reflects the written pay statement element in the GOV.UK listing; the judgment did not separately break out that issue, but dismissed the claim(s) as out of time and outside jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.