Case 4102728/2020 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102728/2020 Mr A Fraser v Represented by: Mr W McParland, Solicitor Maersk Drilling UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4102728/2020
- Decision date
- 31 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nick Hosie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102728/2020 Mr A Fraser
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the claims against Maersk Drilling UK Limited were withdrawn by the claimant. The Employment Judge therefore dismissed the claims under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
No findings on the merits of the underlying complaints are set out in the judgment text provided, and no remedy was awarded. The judgment is limited to the procedural dismissal following withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant withdrew the claims against Maersk Drilling UK Limited, and they were dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant withdrew the claims against Maersk Drilling UK Limited, and they were dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and 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.