Case 4103730/2020 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103730/2020 Preliminary Hearing at Dundee on December 2020 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Paul Randall v David Ritchie (Implements) Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4103730/2020
- Decision date
- 15 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo MacLeod
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103730/2020 Preliminary Hearing at Dundee on December 2020 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Paul Randall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and breach of contract arising from the termination of his employment by David Ritchie (Implements) Ltd. The tribunal found that he started work on 9 September 2019 and that the effective date of termination was 15 May 2020, when he was told verbally that his employment would end. A confirming letter dated 21 May 2020 stated that the dismissal was on the ground of poor performance and that one week's paid notice would be paid. The tribunal also found that the claimant received payment in respect of notice after dismissal.
The respondent argued that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear an ordinary unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had been employed for less than two years and therefore could not bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. It considered whether the claimant's further particulars disclosed any basis for automatically unfair dismissal, but found no indication of a protected disclosure, health and safety reason, or assertion of a statutory right, and treated the additional material as expanding on his complaint of unfair treatment rather than introducing a new claim.
The tribunal held that, because the claimant lacked the necessary qualifying service and no exception under section 108 applied, the unfair dismissal claim could not proceed and had to be dismissed. It also recorded that, since the claimant had been paid his notice pay, the breach of contract claim fell away. The formal judgment was that the claimant's claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claimant had less than two years' continuous service and the tribunal found no pleaded basis for automatically unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal recorded that the claimant had been paid his notice pay, so the breach of contract element fell away. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd t/a Stagecoach Selkent v Moore
- Ladbrokes Racing Ltd v Traynor
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.