Case 4102343/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Atack Ms H Moran v Represented by: Mr M Allison - Solicitor Mr I McKenzie and 5 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 4102343/2018
- Decision date
- 1 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Iain F.
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
7 namedClaimant
Atack Ms H Moran
Respondents
- Represented by: Mr M Allison - Solicitor Mr I McKenzie
- Represented by: Ms M Jenkins - Solicitor Mr G Fairhurst
- Represented by: Ms M Jenkins - Solicitor Mr P Stewart
- Represented by: Ms M Jenkins - Solicitor Mr I G Marshall
- Represented by: Ms M Jenkins - Solicitor Mr D Turnbull
- Represented by: Ms M Jenkins - Solicitor The Royal Gourock Yacht Club
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the sixth respondent, The Royal Gourock Yacht Club, as head chef from 14 April 2014 until 16 November 2017 and was paid £8.59 per hour. Her hours were variable and fell below 20 in July and again in September 2017, which she said caused financial difficulty. The tribunal identified the central issue as whether she resigned on 9 November 2017 or was dismissed on 16 November 2017.
The tribunal found that on 7 November 2017 the claimant told Rita Keenan that she was resigning to take up a new job at the Bakehouse café and that Thursday would be her last shift. It found that the claimant then met Stephen Keenan and repeated that she was resigning, and that it was agreed she would work a week's notice. Mr Fairhurst later drafted and attempted to deliver a letter accepting her notice on 14 November, but the claimant said she had not resigned.
In deciding between the parties' accounts, the tribunal accepted the evidence of Rita Keenan and Stephen Keenan as credible and reliable and did not regard the claimant as wholly reliable on all matters. It took into account the absence of any convincing explanation for why the respondents would fabricate a resignation, the lack of evidence supporting the claimant's account of a job interview outcome, and the fact that the absence of Maida McNeill as a witness did not assist either side.
The tribunal concluded on the balance of probabilities that the claimant resigned and was not dismissed. On that basis, both the unfair dismissal claim and the breach of contract claim were dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant resigned on 9 November 2017 and was not dismissed on 16 November 2017. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed on the same factual finding that the employment ended by resignation rather than dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- balance of probabilities
- unequivocal resignation
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.