Case 8000364/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Brandon Duffy v Dramsip Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000364/2023
- Decision date
- 15 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Brandon Duffy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 5 February 2024, Mr Duffy withdrew the Equality Act 2010 claims and the tribunal dismissed them under rule 52. The remaining complaints were whistleblowing, unfair dismissal and breach of contract. For limitation purposes, the tribunal treated 1 October 2022 as the termination date. Mr Duffy accepted that he did not have two years' continuous service for ordinary unfair dismissal and said his case was instead based on a protected disclosure said to have been made on 30 July 2022 about theft, drugs and discrimination.
The tribunal applied the 'not reasonably practicable' test, referring to Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Limited, Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan, Palmer and another v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Asda Stores Limited v Kauser and Cygnet Behavioural Health v Britton. It accepted medical evidence that, because of his health, it was not reasonably practicable for Mr Duffy to present the claims within the primary time limit.
The tribunal nevertheless found that from January 2023 he was able to pursue subject access requests, ACAS early conciliation and related proceedings against SG and others. It found that he knew the essential facts by then, and that at the latest by February 2023 and certainly by March 2023 it would have been reasonable to bring claims against Dramsip Limited. The tribunal held that waiting until 20 July 2023 was not reasonable, so it lacked jurisdiction under section 111 ERA 1996, section 48 ERA 1996 and article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Withdrawn by the claimant at the preliminary hearing; dismissed under rule 52. The judgment disposes of the Equality Act claims collectively rather than giving separate reasoning for each head. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Withdrawn by the claimant at the preliminary hearing; dismissed under rule 52. The judgment disposes of the Equality Act claims collectively rather than giving separate reasoning for each head. | Withdrawn | Sexual orientation | — |
| Victimisation | Withdrawn by the claimant at the preliminary hearing; dismissed under rule 52. The judgment disposes of the Equality Act claims collectively rather than giving separate reasoning for each head. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claim was presented out of time and it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the time limit or within a reasonable further period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction under section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the detriment claim was presented out of time and it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the time limit or within a reasonable further period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- not reasonably practicable
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Limited
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Palmer and another v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Asda Stores Limited v Kauser
- Cygnet Behavioural Health v Britton
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.