Case 3311639/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ealaidh MacKinnon v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311639/2023
- Decision date
- 27 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ealaidh MacKinnon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Cambridge Employment Tribunal by CVP on 15 May 2024 before Employment Judge Hutchings sitting alone. The claimant, Ealaidh MacKinnon, did not attend. Tesco Stores Ltd was represented by Mr Cook of counsel.
The judgment records that the claims of unfair dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay, unlawful deduction from wages and other payments were dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No substantive findings on liability are set out in the written record, and no reasons were provided in the document beyond the reference to the oral judgment given at the hearing.
No monetary award was made, and the written record contains no apportionment of any remedy between claims. The tribunal also noted that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note appended to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed pursuant to rule 47; the claimant did not attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded as a notice pay claim and dismissed pursuant to rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed pursuant to rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed pursuant to rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to this as a claim for other payments and dismisses it pursuant to rule 47. | 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.