Case 4100158/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Marshall v Limited (in Liquidation) — 2017
- Case reference
- 4100158/2016
- Decision date
- 31 March 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Marshall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal postponed the hearing listed for 30 and 31 March 2017 on the claimant's application and set fresh hearing dates for 30 and 31 May 2017. No evidence was heard and the substantive wages claim was not determined.
The postponement followed difficulties obtaining information and documents from HMRC despite a Documents Order, and non-attendance by Mr Hill and an HMRC manager despite Witness Orders. The tribunal recorded that Mr Hill disputed whether he should be a respondent and had provided information, but the tribunal could not decide on the papers that there was no prospect of liability.
The tribunal considered that proceeding would have left the case part heard and would have been difficult without the missing information and witnesses. Directions were given for hearing notices, for the file to be reviewed before the relisted hearing, and for further contact with Mr Hill and HMRC about compliance with the orders.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to outstanding wages sought by the claimant, but this was a procedural postponement judgment and the substantive claim was not adjudicated. | Other | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.