ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 8002771/2025 Heard at Edinburgh on the Cloud Based Video Platform on March 2026 at 10.30 am Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mr J Robertson v Huffmans Limited — 2026

Mr J Robertson was employed by Huffmans from 5 October 2020 until his summary dismissal for redundancy on 5 December 2024. The Tribunal accepted his oral evidence and supporting documents and found that he had four complete years of service, average gross weekly pay of £490 and average net weekly pay of £412. It quantified his underlying entitlements as a £1,960 statutory redundancy payment and £1,648 compensation in lieu of four weeks' notice. It also found that he had five days of accrued but untaken annual leave, worth £392.35.

The claimant first presented his ET1 on 12 November 2025. The Tribunal found that the primary three-month-minus-one-day period expired on 4 March 2025. He contacted ACAS to initiate early conciliation on 8 October 2025, and the certificate was issued on 14 October 2025, but this occurred after the primary period had expired and therefore did not extend it.

The claimant had initially expected the respondent to enter liquidation so that he could claim through the government scheme. Although he was unaware of the Employment Tribunal time limit until about September 2025, the Tribunal found that this ignorance was not reasonable. He had internet access, had contacted ACAS during the initial period, and faced no impediment to researching or asking about Tribunal proceedings and their time limits. Applying the requirement that timely presentation must not have been reasonably practicable, meaning reasonably feasible, the Tribunal found that the claimant could have presented the claims within the primary period.

The Tribunal concluded that the claimant lacked title to present the complaints and that it lacked jurisdiction to consider them. The redundancy payment, notice pay and holiday pay claims were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The quantified underlying entitlements were not awarded; the Tribunal stated only that a future claim on the Government Fund might possibly be considered or reconsidered if the respondent entered liquidation or ceased to be active, without guaranteeing that outcome.