Case 4102205/2019 · Employment Tribunal

ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No 4102205/2019 Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Held at Edinburgh on August 2019 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno, QVRM, TD, VR, WS Mr J Amos v Pendrich Height Services Limited — 2019

Case reference: 4102205/2019
Decision date: 30 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge Sangster’s Orders
Venue: Edinburgh

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No 4102205/2019 Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Held at Edinburgh on August 2019 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno, QVRM, TD, VR, WS Mr J Amos

Respondent

Pendrich Height Services Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr Amos worked for Pendrich Height Services Limited as a steeplejack from 30 January 2017 until 11 December 2018. His ET1 alleged that he was dismissed after raising health and safety concerns. The tribunal recorded that, because he had less than two years' continuous service, he lacked title to present an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under ss.95-98 and s.108 ERA 1996, although the pleadings also referred to automatic unfair dismissal and, alternatively, protected disclosure under s.103A ERA 1996.

The hearing on 22 August 2019 concerned the respondent's application to strike out the claim for non-compliance with Employment Judge Sangster's orders of 24/30 May 2019. Those orders required further particulars of each health and safety complaint, confirmation of the statutory basis relied on, a remedy and mitigation statement, disclosure of documents, and related case management steps. The tribunal found that the claimant's 8 June 2019 email was late and did not comply with paragraphs 2, 3 or 6 of the orders, and that many of the asserted incidents in paragraph 1 lacked the required specification.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's position that his email amounted to full compliance. It held that the non-compliance was substantial, and that the respondent had not been given fair notice of the case it had to meet less than 14 working days before the listed three-day final hearing. The tribunal therefore found that the final hearing could not proceed on 10, 11 and 12 September 2019 and vacated those dates.

Applying the overriding objective and its discretion under Rule 37(1)(c), the tribunal declined to strike out the claim at that stage. Instead it reiterated and varied the orders, adjourned the case for further case management, and made the orders subject to an unless order so that failure to comply with specified directions would result in dismissal without further order.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal did not finally determine the claim. It recorded that the claimant had less than two years' continuous service and therefore lacked title to present an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under ss.95-98 and s.108 ERA 1996, but it declined to strike out the claim at this stage and instead made an unless order after finding non-compliance with case management directions.	Other	—	—
Whistleblowing	The ET1 also referred to dismissal after raising health and safety concerns and alternatively to s.103A ERA 1996 protected disclosure. No merits finding was made on that basis; the tribunal only dealt with the respondent's strike-out application and kept the case alive subject to compliance with the reiterated orders.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.