Case 8000055/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Member M McAllister Tribunal Member P McColl Ms A Breslin v Transcosmos Information Systems Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000055/2023
- Decision date
- 20 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Murphy Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- M McAllister, P McColl
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member M McAllister Tribunal Member P McColl Ms A Breslin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningA public preliminary hearing took place in Glasgow on 13 and 14 March 2024 to decide whether the claimant's complaints had been brought out of time. Evidence was taken orally from the claimant.
The tribunal unanimously decided that it was just and equitable to grant the extension necessary under s.123(1)(b) EA and therefore had jurisdiction to determine the claim. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing on 14 March 2024.
This decision addressed limitation and jurisdiction only. It did not determine the merits of any underlying discrimination complaint, and no monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Preliminary hearing only; the tribunal granted the extension and held it had jurisdiction to determine the complaint. Merits were not decided. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only; the tribunal granted the extension and held it had jurisdiction to determine the complaint. Merits were not decided. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.123(1)(b) EA
- just and equitable
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.