Case 1601046/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D. Gilhooley v Craig Hamilton Architects Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601046/2019
- Decision date
- 16 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D. Gilhooley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr Gilhooley did not have two years' qualifying employment and that no exception to the qualifying period was claimed. On that basis, the tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim, and that claim was dismissed.
The remaining claims were for unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday pay due on termination of employment. The tribunal recorded that those claims had been settled and were withdrawn, and it dismissed them on withdrawal by the claimant. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and no written reasons were to be provided absent a request made within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant lacked two years' qualifying employment, no exception to the qualifying rule was claimed, and the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded that the claim had been settled and was withdrawn; it was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal recorded that the claim for holiday pay due on termination had been settled and was withdrawn; it was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.