Case 8001828/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Howie v Equans E&S Solutions Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001828/2024
- Decision date
- 30 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Jones
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Howie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held a preliminary hearing on 28 April 2025 and determined that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Mr S Howie's claims. It found that he had been employed by Equans E&S Solutions Ltd from 24 June 2019 until his summary dismissal on 15 July 2024, that his appeal against dismissal was unsuccessful on 29 July 2024, and that the statutory time limit expired after 14 October 2024. Early conciliation did not begin until 30 October 2024 and the certificate was issued on 5 November 2024.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the Tribunal applied section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and asked whether it had been reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time. It accepted that Mr Howie had family difficulties, had no income for a period, started a new job and went on holiday, but found that he had not taken reasonable steps to investigate the time limit and had left matters too late. The Tribunal noted that he believed he had three months from the appeal outcome, but found that this misunderstanding was not reasonably explained and that he could have contacted ACAS earlier. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed.
On the age discrimination claim, the Tribunal applied the just and equitable time limit discretion under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010. It took into account the delay, the fact that the allegation of age discrimination was not raised in the appeal, the limited comparator case advanced, and the Tribunal's view that the claim appeared weak. Balancing those matters against Mr Howie's personal circumstances, it concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The age discrimination claim was also dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the complaint was not presented within time and the Tribunal was not satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable to present it earlier. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time and the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 111(2) ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable
- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
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.