Case 2600325/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Joseph McDonald v Beeston Jewellers Ltd t/a Andrew McCulloch Jewellers — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600325/2021
- Decision date
- 18 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Britton Representation
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Joseph McDonald
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary case-management judgment, heard at Nottingham by CVP on 18 August 2021 before Employment Judge P Britton. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, brought on the basis of s104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, could proceed and that two years' qualifying service was not needed for that claim. It also recorded that the claim for non-payment of wages would proceed.
By consent, the matter was listed to proceed to Judicial Mediation before the same judge on 9 September 2021 at 9.45am by CVP. The tribunal directed the claimant to provide a revised schedule of loss and list of expectations, and the respondent to provide its counter schedule of loss and list of expectations. The claimant was to be assisted by his father, and the respondent was to be represented by a solicitor and also have a director with decision-making authority present.
No substantive findings on liability were made in this order, and no remedy or monetary award was recorded. The text is confined to permission for the claims to proceed and the directions for mediation and case management.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary order only. The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim based on s104 ERA 1996 could proceed because two years' qualifying service was not required. No final liability finding was made in this order. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary order only. The tribunal recorded that the non-payment of wages claim also proceeded. No final liability finding or award was made in this order. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s104 ERA 1996
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.