Case 4100146/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Burns v Carmelon Preparation Centre Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4100146/2022
- Decision date
- 29 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Burns
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's unfair dismissal claim against Carmelon Preparation Centre Ltd. On 16 February 2022 it asked the claimant to explain why the claim was being brought, given that he did not have two years' qualifying service. The claimant replied on 17 February 2022 that he had not been paid, but did not explain why he was bringing an unfair dismissal claim despite the lack of qualifying service.
On 24 February 2022 the tribunal gave the claimant another opportunity to provide written reasons by 10 March 2022, or to request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not respond further and did not ask for a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim under rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant had been given opportunities to explain the claim despite not having two years' qualifying service, but did not provide a basis for the unfair dismissal complaint or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(a)
- two years' qualifying service
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.