Case 4104915/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M. Hall v Mr M. Basi t/a Professional Gardening Services — 2021
- Case reference
- 4104915/2020
- Decision date
- 15 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A. Tinnion
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M. Hall
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 15 January 2021, held by CVP, Employment Judge A. Tinnion heard the Claimant's oral evidence, considered the documents in the Claimant's production, and heard submissions on jurisdiction/time limits and liability. The Tribunal said that, for reasons given orally, it had jurisdiction over the Claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and failure to pay holiday pay.
The Tribunal found in the Claimant's favour on unfair dismissal and on failure to pay holiday pay, and held that both complaints were well-founded. The Tribunal also recorded that the unlawful deduction from wages complaint was dismissed under Rule 52 because that complaint had been withdrawn by the Claimant.
The Tribunal directed that a separate remedy hearing be listed to determine the Claimant's remedy entitlements, noting that the hearing on 15 January 2021 had overrun. It referred the Claimant's solicitor to the principles in Office Equipment Systems Ltd v Hughes [2018] EWCA Civ 1842 when deciding that the Respondent should be permitted to participate in the remedy hearing to the extent set out in the order.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states this complaint was dismissed under Rule 52 because it had been withdrawn by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held the complaint was well-founded and that the Claimant was entitled to a remedy; quantum was left to a later remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal held the complaint of failure to pay holiday pay was well-founded and that the Claimant was entitled to a remedy; quantum was left to a later remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Office Equipment Systems Ltd v Hughes [2018] EWCA Civ 1842
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.