Case 8000123/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Hanton v Scottish Enterprise — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000123/2023
- Decision date
- 7 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Hanton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider Mr P Hanton's unfair dismissal and sex discrimination claims against Scottish Enterprise. The claimant had resigned on 11 November 2022, his employment ended on 9 December 2022, and he lodged his tribunal claim on 17 March 2023. The tribunal accepted that he had suffered serious bereavements in July 2021, that his mental health had been affected, and that he was receiving medical treatment during the relevant period, but it also found that he had researched the time limits, contacted ACAS, spoken to a conciliation officer at some point, and contacted two sets of solicitors.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996 and the 'not reasonably practicable' test, referring to Palmer and Saunders v Southend on Sea Borough Council. It accepted that the claimant genuinely misunderstood the time limit, but it did not accept that he had a reasonable basis for believing, from ACAS, that he had three months from the date of the certificate or that he had to wait a month before lodging. The tribunal found that his mental health difficulties did not make it not reasonably practicable for him to present the claim in time, because he was still able to research the position, speak to ACAS, seek legal advice and look for work. Time was therefore not extended and the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal claim.
On sex discrimination, the tribunal applied s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 and the 'just and equitable' test, with reference to Robertson v Bexley Community Centre and British Coal Corporation v Kibble. It held that the delay was short and that the claimant's mental health treatment during the limitation period was a factor it could take into account, while there was no suggestion that the cogency of the evidence would be affected or that Scottish Enterprise would suffer material prejudice. Time was therefore extended for complaints of sex discrimination occurring on 9 December 2022, or for conduct extending over a period where the last act was 9 December 2022. The tribunal noted that specification and possible amendment issues remained outstanding for a further preliminary hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claim was 6 days late after the s.207B ERA 1996 adjustment and that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time, so it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Time was extended under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 for alleged acts on 9 December 2022, or a continuing series ending on that date; the merits, and outstanding specification/amendment issues, were left for a later preliminary hearing. | Upheld | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- s.207B ERA 1996
- Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Garau
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend on Sea Borough Council
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- s.123(3) Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Kibble
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.