Case 4100471/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Robertson v Motor Mile Motors (Tayside) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100471/2020
- Decision date
- 3 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Robertson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on written submissions before Employment Judge A Kemp. The claimant had worked for Motor Mile Motors Limited from 16 May 2016, the former employer went into administration around 30 August 2019, and the claimant began work with the respondent on or around 3 September 2019. After starting with the respondent, he received a statutory redundancy payment from the Insolvency Service for the period of his employment with the former employer.
The tribunal applied section 214(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which provides that continuity is broken where a redundancy payment has previously been paid and the contract is renewed or the employee is re-engaged under a new contract. It held that the source of the payment, namely the Insolvency Service rather than the former employer, did not matter. The tribunal also relied on Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Lassman [2000] IRLR 411 as supporting the conclusion that the redundancy payment broke continuity of employment.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant's continuity of service for statutory purposes was broken. It therefore held that he did not have the necessary continuity of service to bring a claim for unfair dismissal or to seek a further statutory redundancy payment, and those claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The tribunal said the remaining claims, including unlawful deduction from wages, breach of contract and holiday pay, were not determined at this hearing. It directed the claimant to provide further written specification of any jurisdictional case on unlawful deductions, the basis of any alleged relevant transfer, and a schedule of loss before the next preliminary hearing on 6 July 2020, failing which further consideration would be given to strike out or jurisdictional dismissal of the remaining parts of the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal held that continuity of service had been broken by the claimant's receipt of a statutory redundancy payment, so he did not have the two years' service required for an unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the tribunal held that the claimant's continuity of service had been broken by the prior statutory redundancy payment, so he did not have the necessary continuity to claim a further statutory redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.214(2) ERA 1996
- Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Lassman [2000] IRLR 411
- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.155 ERA 1996
- Rule 37(1)(b)
- Rule 37(1)(c)
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.