Case 4110387/2021 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No: 4110387/2021 Open Preliminary Hearing Held in person in Edinburgh on November 2021 Employment Judge - A Strain Ms L Laidlaw v Represented by:15 Mr N Burn, HR Practitioner Midlothian Council — 2021
- Case reference
- 4110387/2021
- Decision date
- 9 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alan Strain
- Venue
- person in Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No: 4110387/2021 Open Preliminary Hearing Held in person in Edinburgh on November 2021 Employment Judge - A Strain Ms L Laidlaw
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing in Edinburgh on 29 November 2021, Employment Judge Alan Strain held that the claim had been presented within such further period of time as the tribunal considered reasonable under section 111(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Oral reasons were given to the parties at the conclusion of the hearing.
The tribunal refused the respondent's application for strike out and refused its application for a deposit order. No substantive determination of the underlying claim is recorded in this judgment, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that the claim had been presented within such further period of time as it considered reasonable under section 111(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and refused the respondent's applications for strike out and for a deposit order; the substantive claim was not determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 111(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.