The Press Association Ltd

Case Summary

The tribunal dismissed the claim as it was time barred.

The tribunal dismissed the claim because it was filed outside the statutory time limit.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •time bar issue

E.T. Z4 (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) 5 Case No:8000150/2025 Hearing held by CVP at Dundee on 15 April 2025 10 Employment JudgeMcFatridge S Ward Claimant Represented by:15 MsStobart, Advocate Instructed by: Thompsons Solicitors LLP 20 The Press Association LtdRespondent Represented by: Mr Francis, Barrister Instructed by: Keystone Law Ltd25 JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL30 Thejudgment of the Tribunal isthat the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim as it is time barred. REASONS 1.The claimant submitted a claim to the tribunal in which she claimed that35 she had been unlawfully discriminated against by the respondent in that the respondent had failed to make a reasonable adjustment. The respondent submitted a response in which they denied the claim. They 8000150/2025Page2 made the preliminary point that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim as it was time barred. A preliminary hearing was fixed in order to deal with the time bar issue. Neither party sought to lead evidence at this hearing but both made legalsubmissions. I proceeded on the basis that theclaimant’sclaim was as set out in their ET1. I had regard to various5 documents which had been submitted by the parties in a bundle prepared for the preliminary hearing. This included copies of the claimant’s rotas together with a grievance letter which the claimant had submitted in September 2024, various emails between the claimant and the respondent, the grievance outcome given to the claimant by the10 respondent, the claimant’s appeal against part of the grievance outcome and emails between the NUJ and the claimant. Neither party sought to impugn any of the documents lodged as being anything other than what they appeared to be. The emails between theNUJ and the claimant were redacted and the respondent made no issue regarding these redactions.15 Given that the case was determined on thebasis of the pleading…