Case 4100411/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Robertson v Represented by: Mr R Lawson - Solicitor Mr B Adamson Mr J Gouck Mr F McLeod Mr D Murray Alexander Dennis Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100411/2020
- Decision date
- 8 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Robertson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants said they had accepted offers of employment with Alexander Dennis Ltd, with a start date first set for 5 August 2019 and then varied to 16 September 2019. The respondent then wrote on 9 August 2019 to withdraw the offers. The hearing before Employment Judge L Wiseman was limited to the respondent's application to strike out the breach of contract claims.
The tribunal held that, for the purposes of strike out, there was a reasonable prospect of the claimants showing a breach of contract. It found that once the claimants had accepted the offer and were due to commence employment on 16 September 2019, the contract was binding and the employer could not unilaterally withdraw the offer. The tribunal also considered that the contractual notice wording relied on by the respondent referred to the probationary period, and that period had not yet started.
On damages, the tribunal identified a live factual dispute about whether any loss flowed from the alleged breach, including whether the claimants lost the opportunity to look for alternative employment during the period before 9 August 2019 and whether any mitigation issues arose. Because that issue required evidence, it was not appropriate to strike out the claims. The tribunal refused the strike out application and directed a further telephone conference about listing the case for a one day hearing, including whether it could proceed remotely. It also confined the hearing to strike out because the claimants had not had 14 days' notice of a deposit-order issue and the tribunal had no information about their ability to pay a deposit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Preliminary hearing on the respondent's strike-out application only; the tribunal refused strike out and directed the case to proceed to a substantive hearing. No final merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 no reasonable prospect of success
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College high test
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.