Case 4104276/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No:4104276/2023 Preliminary Hearing at Dundee ET by Video Conference on January 2024 Mr C Campbell v Glendale Larder and Deli — 2024
- Case reference
- 4104276/2023
- Decision date
- 29 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No:4104276/2023 Preliminary Hearing at Dundee ET by Video Conference on January 2024 Mr C Campbell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Dundee by video conference on 29 January 2024, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by a solicitor. The tribunal considered the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal against Glendale Larder and Deli.
The tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had not completed the two-year qualifying period of employment required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed.
The judgment also records that the claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages and his claim under Schedule 5 of the Employment Act 2002 concerning the alleged failure to provide written employment particulars were not dismissed at that stage and were to proceed in accordance with the case management order of the same date.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at preliminary hearing because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction: the claimant had not met the two-year qualifying period of employment required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 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.