Case 4102062/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul McIntosh v Ovo (S) Electricity Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4102062/2020
- Decision date
- 2 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul McIntosh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing held by CVP on 30 November 2020, Employment Judge I McFatridge gave oral reasons and held that two claims should be struck out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The struck-out claims were the claim of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the claim of detriment in connection with the making of protected disclosures under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The judgment records that the remaining claims, namely unfair dismissal and breach of contract in relation to reimbursement of expenses, were to proceed to a final hearing. No monetary award was made in this preliminary decision, and the judgment does not set out any remedy calculation.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the claim of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 under Rule 37 at a preliminary hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal struck out the claim of detriment in connection with the making of protected disclosures under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 under Rule 37 at a preliminary hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
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.