Case 2603205/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D McCaskill [First Claimant] Miss L McCaskill [Second Claimant] v Wold Farms Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2603205/2023
- Decision date
- 29 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
- Venue
- Nottingham Tribunal Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D McCaskill [First Claimant] Miss L McCaskill [Second Claimant]
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded the correct respondent name as Wold Farms Limited. The final hearing took place at Nottingham Tribunal Hearing Centre on 16, 17 and 24 October 2024 before Employment Judge S Shore. The written judgment records the outcomes only and states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons were provided.
The first claimant, Mr D McCaskill, brought claims of unfair dismissal and breach of contract relating to failure to pay notice pay. Both claims failed.
The second claimant, Miss L McCaskill, brought a claim of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which was dismissed upon withdrawal, and separate claims of unfair dismissal and breach of contract relating to failure to pay notice pay. Those claims also failed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | First claimant's claim of unfair dismissal failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | First claimant's breach of contract claim for failure to pay notice pay failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Second claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Second claimant's claim of unfair dismissal failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Second claimant's breach of contract claim for failure to pay notice pay failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.