Case 4111454/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4111454/2019 Held in Aberdeen on February 2020 Employment Judge N M Hosie Ms I Lawrie v Fire Protection Alliance Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4111454/2019
- Decision date
- 16 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicol Hosie
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4111454/2019 Held in Aberdeen on February 2020 Employment Judge N M Hosie Ms I Lawrie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Nicol Hosie in Aberdeen on 18 February 2020. Ms Lawrie claimed unfair dismissal, notice pay, accrued holiday pay, and an award for failure to provide written terms and conditions, and she also challenged a settlement agreement on the basis that the respondent had not paid all sums due under it. The respondent maintained that a legally binding settlement agreement had been reached and that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the claims had been settled.
The central issue became the effective date of termination. The claimant argued that the date could not be earlier than 26 August 2019, when she and her solicitor signed the agreement, and she relied on correspondence said to show that negotiations were still ongoing. The respondent relied on the agreement itself, the P45 showing a leaving date of 16 August 2019, and the evidence of Graham Morris, who said that 16 August 2019 was the agreed termination date. The tribunal found Mr Morris credible and reliable, held that the agreement's terms were clear, and concluded that the effective date of termination was 16 August 2019.
The tribunal refused to admit the additional documents said to be without prejudice material. It accepted the respondent's submission that the Oceanbulk interpretation exception did not assist because the settlement agreement could be properly construed without that material, and it found that the case did not fall within the recognised exceptions discussed in Unilever. The tribunal also noted that, even if the additional documents had been admitted, it would have reached the same view on the termination date.
Having found that the effective date of termination was 16 August 2019, the tribunal held that it had no contractual jurisdiction to consider the claim under section 3 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994. It therefore dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction. The judgment records that the respondent had paid a termination payment of £4,000 and legal expenses of £300 under the agreement, and that there had been an overpayment of holiday pay of £1,143.52 deducted from the final payment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary jurisdiction decision. The tribunal held that the effective date of termination was 16 August 2019, rejected the claimant's attempt to rely on additional without-prejudice material, and concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim because the contractual claim did not arise or remain outstanding on termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd
- Unilever plc v Procter & Gamble Co
- Fitzgerald v University of Kent at Canterbury
- Miller Bros & FP Butler Ltd v Johnston
- Employment Tribunals Act 1996 s.3
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
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.