Case 8000733/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R McCulloch v Valve Components Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000733/2025
- Decision date
- 19 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R McCulloch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not appear and was not represented. The Tribunal recorded that the claimant's protective award claim under section 189 of TULRCA had already been dismissed under Rule 52 in a judgment dated 30 July 2024, and therefore could not be considered in this hearing.
The Tribunal also held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the breach of contract claim. It found that the claim had been lodged outside the three month statutory time limit under Section 7 of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1996, and that it could not be satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable to bring the claim within that time limit.
Reasons were provided orally. No monetary award was made in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for a protective award under section 189 TULRCA had been dismissed under Rule 52 in a judgment dated 30 July 2024, so the Tribunal held it could not be considered. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was lodged outside the three month statutory time limit and it was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2014
- Section 7 of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1996
- not 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.