Case 4106697/2017 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106697/2017 & 4100278/2018 Hearing at Edinburgh on November 2018 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone)10 John Hughes v Represented by Mr I Burke Solicitor Richard McCulloch and Mrs Lisa McCulloch — 2018
- Case reference
- 4106697/2017
- Decision date
- 20 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macleod
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106697/2017 & 4100278/2018 Hearing at Edinburgh on November 2018 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone)10 John Hughes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal and a number of payment claims in respect of unlawful deductions from wages. The respondents resisted the claims, and a merits hearing was fixed to begin on 20 November 2018.
At about 5pm on 19 November 2018, ACAS notified the tribunal that the claim had settled. When the parties appeared at the start of the hearing, counsel for both sides confirmed that the claimant's case and the employer's contract claim had been resolved by way of a COT3. The tribunal therefore dismissed both claims. No merits findings or remedy awards were made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The payment claims were resolved by COT3 before the merits hearing and dismissed by the tribunal. | Settled | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The employer's contract claim (case no. 4100278/2018) was resolved by COT3 and dismissed. | Settled | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Resolved by COT3 before the merits hearing and dismissed by the tribunal. | Settled | — | — |
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.