Case 4121864/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v NHS Greater Glasgow And Clyde — 2019
- Case reference
- 4121864/2018
- Decision date
- 22 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I Atack
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing listed to consider time bar. The respondent argued that the unfair dismissal claim had been presented out of time and should be dismissed. The claimant did not appear. The tribunal noted that notice of the hearing had been sent on 22 May 2019 and that the clerk had attempted to telephone the claimant, but there was no reply and no explanation was provided to the tribunal for her absence.
The tribunal referred to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 and concluded that it was not possible to proceed in the claimant’s absence. It also recorded that, on the face of it, the claim was out of time and that it was for the claimant to show that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim within the statutory time limit. The claim was therefore dismissed. The judgment noted that, if the claimant had a good reason for failing to attend, she could apply for reconsideration within 14 days of the judgment being sent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing on 15 July 2019. The tribunal was dealing with time bar and, after the claimant did not attend and gave no explanation, dismissed the claim under Rule 47 without reaching the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.