Case 4105373/2022 · Employment Tribunal
S McBurnie v Voyant UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4105373/2022
- Decision date
- 9 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shona MacLeanMr
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S McBurnie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr S McBurnie, presented complaints of breach of contract and unauthorised deduction of wages against Voyant UK Limited. The hearing took place via Cloud Video Platform in Glasgow on 6 January 2023 before Employment Judge Shona MacLean, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr D Kaufman, Director.
The tribunal did not determine either complaint on its merits. It held that it did not have jurisdiction under article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994/1624 and section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to hear the complaints presented on 3 October 2022.
Oral reasons were given at the hearing. No monetary award was made and the judgment records no substantive findings on liability for breach of contract or unlawful deduction of wages.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction under article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994/1624 and section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to hear this complaint. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction under article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994/1624 and section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to hear this complaint. | Other | — | — |
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.