Case 6001176/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Purcell v T K Lynskey (Excavations) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 6001176/2023
- Decision date
- 15 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Purcell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Purcell brought a complaint of detriment for making protected disclosures against T K Lynskey (Excavations) Limited. Employment Judge Miller found that this complaint had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. The whistleblowing detriment complaint was therefore dismissed.
The tribunal also considered a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages in relation to holiday pay. It refused to strike out that complaint under Employment Tribunal Rule 37 and recorded that it would be determined at the final hearing. No remedy was decided in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of detriment for making protected disclosures was found to be out of time. The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to present the complaint within the applicable time limit, so it was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages in relation to holiday pay was not struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37 and was left to be determined at the final hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37
- 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.
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.