Case 4100337/2016 · Employment Tribunal
69(scot) claim dismissed on withdrawal rule EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Nos: S/4100337/2016 & others (see attached schedule) Mr S Assiph & others v (see attached schedule) Represented by: Mr R Lawson Solicitor Jaydee Heating Limited (In administration) — 2017
- Case reference
- 4100337/2016
- Decision date
- 31 March 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McFatridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
69(scot) claim dismissed on withdrawal rule EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Nos: S/4100337/2016 & others (see attached schedule) Mr S Assiph & others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claims in S/4100337/2016 and the five associated cases had been withdrawn by the claimants. It therefore dismissed the claims under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The judgment does not contain any substantive findings on liability, remedy, or the underlying factual disputes. It is an administrative disposal following withdrawal rather than a decision on the merits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that the claims in case S/4100337/2016 and the five associated cases were withdrawn by the claimants and were dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. No substantive merits were decided. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 52 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.