Case 4105423/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Allan Tosh v 15 Arnold Clark Automobiles Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4105423/2023
- Decision date
- 23 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Allan Tosh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge M Whitcombe sitting in Glasgow on 15 and 16 January 2024 found that Mr Allan Tosh had been unfairly dismissed by Arnold Clark Automobiles Limited. Oral reasons were given in the presence of the parties, and neither side asked for written reasons.
The tribunal held that it would be just and equitable to reduce both the basic award and the compensatory award for unfair dismissal by 25% to reflect the claimant’s contributory fault. It also held that it would not be just and equitable to make any further reduction for the chance of a fair dismissal if the respondent had followed a fair procedure, because a fair procedure would not have led to dismissal.
The judgment did not set out a final monetary award. It recorded that the parties had reached terms of settlement on the remaining remedy issues, but needed time to implement those terms with the help of an ACAS conciliator. The outstanding remedy issues were therefore adjourned to be heard, if necessary, on 23 February 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It also held that both the basic award and compensatory award would be reduced by 25% to reflect contributory fault, and that there should be no further reduction for the chance of a fair dismissal because a fair procedure would not have led to dismissal. The remaining issues of remedy were later adjourned after the parties said they had reached terms of settlement to be implemented with the help of an ACAS conciliator. | 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.