Case 4102102/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Sparrow v Maklab Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2017
- Case reference
- 4102102/2017
- Decision date
- 10 August 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Sparrow
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal for Scotland found that the respondent failed to enter a response after the claim form was sent on 7 July 2017. Applying Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Employment Judge Ian McPherson decided that the claimant's liability claims could be determined on the available material without a hearing.
The tribunal held that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unlawful deduction from wages, and failure to pay holiday pay all succeeded. No remedy figures were decided in this judgment, because the tribunal recorded that remedy required a hearing. The reasons note that a remedy hearing had already been arranged for 31 August 2017 at 2.00pm, converted to a remedy hearing with duration extended to 2 hours.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability determined on the papers under Rule 21; remedy to be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Liability determined on the papers under Rule 21; remedy to be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Liability determined on the papers under Rule 21; remedy to be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records a complaint of failure to pay holiday pay succeeding; remedy was reserved. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 16 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.