Case 8000418/2024 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000418/2024 Held on June 2024 by CVP Employment Judge N M Hosie Dr A Shipman v Conigital Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000418/2024
- Decision date
- 27 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000418/2024 Held on June 2024 by CVP Employment Judge N M Hosie Dr A Shipman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDr Shipman gave evidence that he had not received wages and pension contributions due from Conigital Limited t/a Conigital io. The tribunal recorded that he presented as measured, consistent, convincing, credible and reliable, and it accepted that his claim for unpaid wages and pension contributions was well founded on the facts. It also found, on the basis of his evidence and HMRC correspondence, that the respondent's information suggesting salary payments in July and September was incorrect, and that he had in fact received only one salary payment in July and no salary payments thereafter for August and the week in September before termination on 8 September 2023.
Despite those factual findings, the tribunal held that the claim was time-barred. It found that Dr Shipman had failed to notify ACAS within the statutory 3 month time limit from the effective date of termination and had also failed to submit his claim form within 1 month of the ACAS certificate being issued. The tribunal was not persuaded that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, so the claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim concerned unpaid wages and pension contributions. The tribunal accepted the evidence as credible and considered the underlying claim well founded, but dismissed it as time-barred for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.