Case 4100330/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M McGrother v Woodgroup PSN Limited — 2017
- Case reference
- 4100330/2017
- Decision date
- 6 April 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Jane Garvie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M McGrother
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal for Scotland entered judgment on 6 April 2017 in favour of Mr M McGrother on his complaints of unfair dismissal and breach of contract. The judgment was issued under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 after the respondent failed to enter a response within the required time.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claim form had been sent to Woodgroup PSN Limited on 3 March 2017 and that no response was received. Because of that default, the tribunal held that both complaints succeeded.
The judgment did not determine remedy. It stated that the remedy for the unfair dismissal claim would be determined by an Employment Judge at a later hearing, and that a final hearing would be arranged and notified in due course.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a response. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was to be fixed at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a response. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was to be fixed 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 Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.