Case 4104298/2020 · Employment Tribunal
5 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104298/2020 Preliminary Hearing Held by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on April 2021 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Mr Sean Cowan v Manorview Hotels Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4104298/2020
- Decision date
- 17 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sandy Meiklejohn
Parties
2 namedClaimant
5 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104298/2020 Preliminary Hearing Held by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on April 2021 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Mr Sean Cowan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing held by CVP on 30 April 2021 before Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn, the tribunal dealt with limitation and amendment issues in Mr Sean Cowan's claim against Manorview Hotels Ltd. It recorded that the unfair dismissal complaint was not time barred.
The tribunal allowed the claimant to amend his claim so as to add a complaint that the respondent failed to permit him to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing on 17 March 2020, said to be contrary to section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999.
Despite finding that the unfair dismissal complaint was in time, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider that complaint and dismissed it. The written judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint was not time barred, but also held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider that complaint, so it was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal allowed the claimant to amend his claim to add a complaint that the respondent failed to permit him to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing on 17 March 2020 contrary to section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. | Upheld | — | — |
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.