Case 1800825/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Muir v Russell Ductile Castings Limited (In Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1800825/2023
- Decision date
- 19 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buckley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Muir
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the complaint of unfair dismissal only. By order dated 27 April 2023, sent on 4 May 2023, the claimant was given the opportunity to make representations by 15 May 2023 on why that complaint should not be struck out because he had less than two years' service.
The claimant did not make written representations. On the information before the tribunal, there was no argument that any of the specific circumstances permitting a claim with less than two years' service applied. The tribunal therefore concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint and that it had no reasonable prospects of success.
The judgment records that the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. It also states that the claimant's remaining claims stayed listed for a preliminary hearing on 16 June 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37. The tribunal said the claimant had less than two years' service, had not made written representations by 15 May 2023, and there was no argument that any exception allowing a claim with under two years' service applied. The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and that it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
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.