Case 8000558/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000558/2023 Held via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on March 2024 Employment Judge N M Hosie Miss Audrey Hanvidge
The preliminary hearing determined whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear complaints of constructive and unfair dismissal, age discrimination, and disability discrimination. The claimant resigned on 21 May 2023, began ACAS Early Conciliation on 27 October 2023, received the ACAS certificate on 30 October 2023, and presented the claim on 2 November 2023. It was not disputed that the claim was presented outside the three-month time limit.
For the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time. The tribunal noted that although she had health issues and was taking medication, she was not signed off work, was able to work in alternative nursing roles, communicate by email, had access to a computer, had previously submitted an employment tribunal claim, and could have ascertained the time limit. It also found the claim was not presented within a reasonable period thereafter.
For the discrimination complaints, the tribunal treated the latest possible starting date for time as the effective date of termination, 21 May 2023. It found no material impediment to presenting the claims in time and concluded that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The entire claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction as time barred.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the complaint was time barred; the tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the complaint was time barred; the tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant complained that she had been constructively and unfairly dismissed. The judgment addressed the unfair dismissal complaint as out of time and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
The 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.
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.