Case 4100127/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Michael McGee v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100127/2023
- Decision date
- 4 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr. Michael McGee
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe public final hearing took place in Glasgow by video/CVP on 3 May 2023 before Employment Judge Tinnion. Mr Michael McGee did not attend and was not represented. The respondent, Board of Management of South Lanarkshire College, was represented by Ms M. McGrady, solicitor.
The judgment states that the Claimant's claim was dismissed under Rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. No separate liability findings or remedy assessment are recorded in the written judgment. The note states that oral reasons were given at the final merits hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not distinguish separate findings on this claim; it dismisses the Claimant's claim under Rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not distinguish separate findings on this claim; it dismisses the Claimant's claim under Rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(d)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.