Case 8000554/2023 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000554/2023 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on April 2024 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Dax MacPherson v NIC Services Group Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000554/2023
- Decision date
- 18 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Macleod Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000554/2023 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on April 2024 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Dax MacPherson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent from 17 August 2017 until his dismissal for conduct on 6 July 2023. He presented claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination on 1 November 2023. The Tribunal found that the claims should have been presented by 5 October 2023 and that the claimant did not obtain any extension from ACAS early conciliation because he contacted ACAS after the statutory time limit had expired.
For the unfair dismissal claim, the Tribunal considered the claimant's reliance on ignorance of time limits, advice said to have been given by ACAS and UNITE, and his belief that he should await the appeal outcome. It found that there was nothing preventing him from presenting the claim within three months, that he could have checked the time limit, and that it was not prepared to accept unclear evidence that both ACAS and UNITE had misled him. The Tribunal also said that, even if timely presentation had not been reasonably practicable, it would not have been satisfied that the claim was presented within a further reasonable period.
For the disability discrimination claim, the Tribunal considered whether it was just and equitable to extend time. It accepted that the cogency of evidence was unlikely to be affected by the delay and that refusal caused greater prejudice to the claimant than allowing the claim to proceed would cause to the respondent. However, it found that the claimant had not advanced a good reason for the late presentation, and decided that it was not just and equitable to extend time. Both claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time and the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time and the Tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] ICR 943
- Palmer & Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council 1984 IRLR 119
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton EAT 175/90
- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble [1997] IRLR 336
- Chohan v Derby Law Centre [2004] IRLR 685
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link 2003 IRLR 434
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.