Case 4100744/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Weadick v SPIE Distribution & Transmission — 2017
- Case reference
- 4100744/2017
- Decision date
- 13 June 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Weadick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in Mr E Weadick's claim for unfair dismissal against SPIE Distribution & Transmission. The tribunal recorded that a copy of the claim form was sent to the respondent on 8 May 2017 and that the respondent failed to enter a response within the required 28 days.
Employment Judge Ian McPherson decided that, on the material available, liability could properly be determined without a hearing. The judgment states that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal succeeds.
The tribunal did not assess remedy in this decision. It recorded that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled would be determined at a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment entered because the respondent did not present a response to the claim form sent on 8 May 2017. The tribunal determined liability on the available material without a hearing. Remedy was left to 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 Tribunals (Constitution & 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.