Case 4100056/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Martin Weir v Braehead Foods Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100056/2020
- Decision date
- 28 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Martin Weir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a case management preliminary hearing held by telephone conference call on 22 May 2020, the claimant accepted that he had less than 2 years' qualifying continuous service with the respondents. The Tribunal recorded that, by reason of s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, he therefore had insufficient service to bring a complaint of unfair dismissal under s.94 of that Act, and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider that part of the claim.
The claimant then intimated that he was withdrawing the unfair dismissal part of the claim under Rule 51. The respondents' representative sought dismissal of that part of the claim under Rule 52, and the Tribunal granted that dismissal. The remaining part of the claim, complaining of unlawful disability discrimination, was stated to be unaffected by the withdrawal and to proceed as separately ordered by the Tribunal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant accepted he had less than 2 years' continuous service, so the Tribunal recorded that it had no jurisdiction under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996. The unfair dismissal part of the claim was then withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 51
- Rule 52
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.