Case 8001098/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Hargreaves v No appearance and No representation Valve Components Ltd (in Administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001098/2025
- Decision date
- 18 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Hargreaves
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge L Doherty in Glasgow on 12 September 2025. Mr S Hargreaves did not attend, and there was no explanation for his absence. The clerk telephoned and emailed him without response, and the tribunal proceeded in his absence on the material in the ET1. The respondent, Valve Components Limited (in Administration), had consented to the continuation of the proceedings by letter dated 27 February 2025.
The issue was whether the tribunal could consider the claimant’s complaint under section 189 of TULCRA. The ET1 was presented on 6 May 2025 and stated that the claimant had been dismissed on 15 March 2024. The tribunal noted that the ET1 contained no information about the date of the last dismissal to which the complaint related, other than the dismissal date stated by the claimant. It applied section 189(5) of TULCRA and held that the claim was, on its face, time-barred.
The tribunal said the onus was on the claimant to show that it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint within the three-month period and that it was presented within a reasonable further period. There was no evidence before the tribunal to enable it to exercise its discretion under section 189(5). It therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim, and the practical effect was that the claim came to an end.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim under section 189 of TULCRA (protective award). The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction because the complaint was presented out of time and there was no evidence that it had not been reasonably practicable to present it within the statutory period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.189(5) TULCRA
- reasonably practicable test
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.