Case 2201829/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs C/o Office of the Advocate General for Scotland — 2019
- Case reference
- 2201829/2018
- Decision date
- 17 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis case was listed for a one-day preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Ian McPherson sitting alone, with a two-day final hearing previously fixed for 11 and 12 June 2019. The parties' representatives asked for time to discuss settlement before the public hearing commenced.
Following those discussions, the tribunal was invited to grant a Rule 64 consent judgment. The tribunal recorded that it was in the interests of justice to do so and issued a consent judgment dismissing the appellant's appeal against the respondents' Notice of Underpayment.
The judgment states that there was no award of costs or expenses against either party. It also records that the final hearing dates were vacated because the parties had settled the appeal on agreed terms, and that the proceedings, which had been initiated in England and Wales and transferred to Scotland, were then at an end.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Appeal against the respondents' Notice of Underpayment was dismissed by consent under Rule 64. The judgment records that the parties had settled the appeal on agreed terms and that there was no award of costs or expenses against either party. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 64 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.