Case 8001339/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Yeats v , Solicitor Mr P Lewtas — 2026
- Case reference
- 8001339/2025
- Decision date
- 5 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge MacLean
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Yeats
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction under section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to consider Ms Yeats's complaint that she had been subjected to a detriment contrary to section 47B. It also held that it lacked jurisdiction under section 111 to consider her complaint of unfair dismissal under section 103A.
For the complaints brought under the Equality Act 2010, the Tribunal found it just and equitable under section 123 to extend the time limit for presentation until 27 May 2025. The judgment does not determine the merits of those complaints and records no monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction under section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to consider the complaint of detriment in contravention of section 47B. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to consider the complaint of unfair dismissal under section 103A. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The Tribunal extended the time limit for presenting the Equality Act 2010 complaints until 27 May 2025. The judgment does not identify the nature of those complaints or any protected characteristic. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- just and equitable extension under section 123 Equality Act 2010
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.