Case 4100198/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A A Kuciak v Home Restore Scotland Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4100198/2022
- Decision date
- 16 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A A Kuciak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the unfair dismissal element of the claim. On 28 February 2022, the claimant was informed that an Employment Judge could not issue a judgment for unfair dismissal because he did not have the 2 years' service required to make such a claim.
On 1 March 2022, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 11 March 2022 or to request a hearing on why that part of the claim should not be struck out. On 7 March 2022, the claimant wrote to the tribunal confirming that he agreed the unfair dismissal claim should be struck out.
The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal part of the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal part of the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal noted that the claimant did not have the 2 years' service required to bring such a claim, and the claimant confirmed on 7 March 2022 that he agreed it should be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(a)
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.