Case 4100050/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ross Murdoch v Represented by Mr R Murdoch L-Tec Controls Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4100050/2019
- Decision date
- 11 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robison
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ross Murdoch
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Glasgow hearing on 10 April 2019, Employment Judge Robison held that the unfair dismissal, holiday pay and notice pay claims were lodged out of time and were therefore dismissed. The judgment did not determine those claims on their merits because the limitation point was decisive.
The tribunal treated the redundancy pay claims differently. Although those claims were also lodged out of time, it found it just and equitable to consider them. It then awarded the first claimant £8,382 in redundancy pay and the second claimant £11,430 in redundancy pay.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was lodged out of time and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the holiday pay claim was lodged out of time and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the notice pay claim was lodged out of time and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | First claimant's redundancy pay claim: although lodged out of time, the tribunal considered it just and equitable to consider it and awarded £8,382. | Upheld | — | £8,382 |
| Redundancy | Second claimant's redundancy pay claim: although lodged out of time, the tribunal considered it just and equitable to consider it and awarded £11,430. | Upheld | — | £11,430 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,812
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable
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.