Case 4105369/2022 · Employment Tribunal
IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case N o : 4105369/2022 Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Held at Edinburgh via the Cloud Based Video Platform on th December 2022 at 10.15 am Employment Judge J G d’lnverno (sitting alone) Mr G Mckinlay
This was an open preliminary hearing on whether the Employment Tribunal had title and jurisdiction to consider the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint against five named individuals. The claimant said the individuals had ruined his career at Royal Mail, causing loss of pension and other loss, but he did not seek reinstatement and instead said he wanted his pension back. The respondents did not appear.
The tribunal recorded that the claim was presented as an unfair dismissal complaint under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that all five respondents were fellow employees, and that none had ever been the claimant's employer. The tribunal also noted that, in his written material and oral submissions, the claimant appeared to be seeking damages for personal injury and breach of contract as part of the same proceedings.
The tribunal held that an employment tribunal is a statutory court with only the jurisdiction given to it by Parliament, and that unfair dismissal complaints can only be directed against a former employer. It further held that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider freestanding claims for personal injury damages, and that any limited contractual jurisdiction is restricted to claims against a claimant's former employer after termination of employment. On the facts offered by the claimant, it therefore found that he lacked title to present the claim and that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider it.
The claimant's claim number 4105369/2022 was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and described in the reasons as struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant lacked title to present, and that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint insofar as directed against the five named respondents, who had all been fellow employees and none of whom had ever been the claimant's employer. | Struck out | — | — |
The 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.
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.