Case 4100052/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Philip Jameson v Ecosse Inns Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100052/2020
- Decision date
- 19 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Philip Jameson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not lodge a response within the Rule 16 time limit, and the Employment Judge determined liability on the papers under Rule 21 without a hearing. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had brought complaints including unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay.
The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed because it was outwith the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal. The judgment states that the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service, so section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not satisfied.
The claimant's complaints of failure to pay notice pay and holiday pay succeeded. The tribunal did not fix the amount payable on those heads in this decision and stated that remedy would be determined at a hearing to be assigned later.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as outwith the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal because the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service, in terms of section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint of failure to pay notice pay succeeded; remedy was not assessed in this judgment and was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Complaint of failure to pay holiday pay succeeded; remedy was not assessed in this judgment and was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 16 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 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.