Case 4103625/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103625/2022 M r F Waddell v B Mundell Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4103625/2022
- Decision date
- 24 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O'Donnell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103625/2022 M r F Waddell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against B Mundell Ltd. The Tribunal recorded that it had asked on 5 September 2022, 6 October 2022 and 25 October 2022 for further information about the legal basis on which it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint, given that the claimant had less than two years' continuous service and therefore had to address section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No suitable reply was received.
On 4 November 2022 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 21 November 2022, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. No reply was received. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim for non-compliance with an order of the Tribunal under rule 37(1)(c). No remedy was awarded because the claim did not proceed to a merits determination.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37(1)(c) for non-compliance with a Tribunal order. The Tribunal had repeatedly asked for further information on the jurisdictional basis of the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' continuous service, and no suitable reply was received. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.