Glasgow City Council

Case Summary

A preliminary hearing to determine jurisdiction over claims arising from the claimant's dismissal on 17 March 2025. The claimant presented two claim forms (17 and 21 July 2025) outside the statutory time limits, arguing victimisation by the respondent. The tribunal dismissed claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 as outside jurisdiction, but accepted jurisdiction over Equality Act 2010 claims as it was just and equitable to extend time.

The claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 were dismissed as outside jurisdiction because the claimant failed to demonstrate that it was reasonably practicable to present the claims within the statutory time limit. However, jurisdiction was accepted for Equality Act 2010 claims because the tribunal found it was just and equitable to extend time having regard to the claimant's personal circumstances, inability to secure legal advice, the multi-factorial nature of the test, and that a fair trial remained possible despite delay.

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

• •Jurisdiction under Employment Rights Act 1996 - reasonable practicability of presenting claims in time
• •Jurisdiction under Equality Act 2010 - whether just and equitable to extend time limit
• •Victimisation claim - whether claimant's belief that respondent victimised her extended time bar

E.T. Z4 (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) 5 Cases Nos: 8001750/2025 and 8001779/2025 Preliminary Hearing held in Glasgow by Cloud Video Platform on 8 April 2026 10 Employment Judge A Kemp Ms S Cherry Claimant 15 In person Glasgow City Council Respondent 20 Represented by: M s B Robertson , Solicitor 25 JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL 1. The claims so far as made under the Employment Rights Act 1996 are not within the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal and are dismissed. 30 2. The claims so far as made under the Equality Act 2010 are within the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal as it is just and equitable to extend jurisdiction to those claims under section 123(1)(b) of that Act. 35 REASONS Introduction 1. The claimant has made two claims against the respondent with the above reference numbers. The claimant is a party litigant and the respondent is 40 represented by Ms Robertson. 8001750/2025 and 8001779/2025 Page 2 2. The claims were combined by order dated 11 September 2025. There was a Preliminary Hearing held on 21 October 2025 before EJ Maclean after which case management orders were made. This hearing was fixed, although the date for it was subsequently changed. It is to determine whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the claims made by the 5 claimant. 3. There are in summary two sets of claims, one set under the Employment Rights Act 1996 where the issue is in essence one of reasonable practicability and the second set under the Equality Act 2010 where the issue is whether it is just and equitable to extend jurisdiction. In each case 10 the claimant separately argues that she was being victimised by the respondent such that her claims were in time. The issues 4. The issues were set out in the Note following the previous Preliminary Hearing and are set out and addressed below. …