Case 8001218/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Cruickshank v Circles Network — 2024
- Case reference
- 8001218/2025
- Decision date
- 23 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Hendry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Cruickshank
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Cruickshank, an advocacy worker for a charity, brought claims of unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and harassment arising from difficulties with his line manager. The tribunal noted that the ET1 was not particularly clear on the harassment allegation and that the respondent argued the claims were brought well outside the time limits.
On the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal applied s.111(2) ERA 1996 and the not reasonably practicable test. It accepted that the claimant had been in contact with UNISON and had personal and health difficulties, but found that he knew the three-month time limit, did not check whether any purported pause had been arranged with ACAS or the tribunal, and then delayed further after he knew the claim was already late.
On the sex discrimination and harassment complaints, the tribunal applied the just and equitable test under s.123 Equality Act 2010 and refused to extend time. It said the allegations were vague and underdeveloped, that the last alleged incident was on or about 27 September 2024, and that the claimant had not persuaded it he intended to litigate those matters before his dismissal. All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as out of time. The tribunal held that Mr Cruickshank had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the three-month limit. The extracted text contains inconsistent dates for the dismissal letter and receipt, so the precise date is unclear. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed as time barred. The tribunal treated the complaint as a sex discrimination claim linked to alleged sexual harassment and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. The ET1 was not particularly clear. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed as time barred. The tribunal treated this as an alleged sexual harassment claim, found the allegations vague and underdeveloped, and declined to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy
- Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
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.