Case 4100281/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Bradley v Thistle Recycling Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4100281/2018
- Decision date
- 14 March 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo Macleod
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Bradley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim form was sent to the respondent on 24 January 2018. The respondent failed to enter a response within the time required by Rule 16 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
Employment Judge Murdo Macleod proceeded under Rule 21 and decided, on the material available, that a determination could properly be made without a hearing as to liability. The tribunal held that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, and unlawful deductions from wages succeeded.
The judgment did not determine remedy. It states that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a hearing before an Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Default judgment under Rule 21; liability determined on the available material without a hearing because the respondent did not enter a response. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Default judgment under Rule 21; the tribunal recorded that the complaint succeeded and stated that remedy would be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment under Rule 21; the tribunal recorded that the complaint succeeded and stated that remedy would be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 16 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.