Case 8000409/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Compton v No appearance and No representation Valve Components Ltd (in Administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000409/2025
- Decision date
- 30 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Compton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge L Doherty in Glasgow by CVP on 10 September 2025. The claimant did not attend. The Tribunal proceeded in his absence, having regard to the overriding objective and the material in the ET1. The respondent was in administration, but the administrator had consented to the continuation of the proceedings by letter dated 27 February 2025.
The claim was presented on 18 February 2025 and was brought under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The ET1 stated that the claimant had been dismissed on 25 June 2024. The Tribunal noted the dates of the ACAA certificate, which was presented on 26 August 2024 and issued on 30 August 2024.
Applying section 189(5) of TULCRA, the Tribunal found that the claim was time barred on the face of the ET1. There was no evidence before the Tribunal to show that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the complaint within the statutory period, or to justify any further extension of time. The Tribunal therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim. The practical effect was that the claim was at an end.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The Tribunal held that the claim under section 189 of TULCRA was presented out of time and that it therefore did not have jurisdiction to consider it. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.189(5) TULCRA
- 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.