Case 4103402/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S B Sampath v Y & S Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103402/2023
- Decision date
- 13 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S B Sampath
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Edinburgh hearing on 8 September 2023, before Employment Judge Smith, the claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not attend or make representation. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, a statutory redundancy payment, and notice pay were withdrawn by him.
The judgment states that those claims were dismissed upon withdrawal under rule 52 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. No merits findings were made on the substance of any claim, and the judgment does not record any award of compensation or other remedy.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The tribunal noted that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or requested in writing within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal under rule 52 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal under rule 52 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment refers to a claim for a statutory redundancy payment; it was dismissed upon withdrawal under rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to a claim for notice pay but does not specify a statutory basis; it was dismissed upon withdrawal under rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.