Case 8002100/2024 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8002100/2024 (V)5 Held on April 2025 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mrs H Thomas v Fedcap Employment Scotland Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 8002100/2024
- Decision date
- 30 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8002100/2024 (V)5 Held on April 2025 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mrs H Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard a preliminary issue on time limits only. The claimant said she had been unfairly dismissed and discriminated against on the grounds of disability. The effective date of dismissal was 17 June 2024, ACAS early conciliation began on 16 September 2024, the certificate issued on 22 October 2024, and the tribunal accepted that the time limit for presenting the claims expired on 22 November 2024. The ET1 was lodged on 11 December 2024, 19 days late.
For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the reasonably practicable test. It accepted that the claimant had a long-standing heart condition, had experienced severe hair loss and anxiety, and was dealing with significant family stress because of her husband's deteriorating mobility and recurrent falls. It also accepted that the claimant was honest and straightforward, but found that she was a capable person who knew how to use a computer, had internet access, had received general advice about tribunal processes and time limits from UNISON, a UNISON lawyer, and ACAS, and could have taken time to check the limit and lodge the claim sooner.
For the disability discrimination claims, the tribunal applied section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and the just and equitable discretion. It referred to the length and reasons for the delay, prejudice to the respondent, and the claimant's circumstances, including the support needs of her husband and her own mental health. The tribunal noted that the claimant had opportunities to attend to her own affairs while her husband was seen by health professionals, and that she completed the application online in about an hour when she finally decided to do so. It concluded that there was no sufficient reason to extend time in either respect and dismissed both claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on time-bar because the claimant did not show that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the three-month limit in section 111 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed on time-bar because the claimant did not show that it was just and equitable to hear the disability discrimination claims late under section 123 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Ltd
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable test
- Robertson v Bexley Community Council
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi
- Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
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.