Case 4106832/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul Handzel v McCurrach UK Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 4106832/2024
- Decision date
- 24 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R King
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedMr Paul Handzel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unfair constructive dismissal, detriment for asserting rights under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (s.45A(1)(f) ERA 1996), detriment for making a protected disclosure (s.47B ERA 1996), and unauthorised deductions from wages (s.13 ERA 1996). The Tribunal at Glasgow heard evidence over six days in 2025 before Employment Judge R King sitting alone.
The Tribunal applied the framework in Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp and Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust to the constructive dismissal claim, and Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the detriment claims. It concluded that, save for one detriment which the first respondent had conceded (the second respondent's approach to arranging meetings), the claimant had not been subjected to detriments, and that the conceded detriment was not because of a protected disclosure or working-time-rights allegation but because of the respondent's desire to resolve a client complaint and understand the claimant's absence. On the wages claim, the August 2024 deduction of £745.26 gross was lawfully made under s.14(1) ERA 1996 to correct earlier overpayments.
The judgment runs to 55 pages; the supplied PDF text is truncated. The disposition recorded at the head of the judgment is unambiguous and supports the dismissals stated above.
Claims and outcomes
4 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 referencesSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.