Case 4107199/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107199/2023 Held via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on March 2024 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr Scott Aitken v South Lanarkshire Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 4107199/2023
- Decision date
- 5 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107199/2023 Held via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on March 2024 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr Scott Aitken
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a standard unfair dismissal claim. The respondent admitted dismissal but said the reason was conduct and that the dismissal was fair. The respondent also argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service.
At the preliminary hearing, documentation showed that the claimant's employment began on 25 April 2022 and ended with summary dismissal on 5 September 2023. The claimant accepted that this was his period of employment.
The Tribunal held that the claimant had been employed for less than two years and therefore did not qualify for the right to claim unfair dismissal under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The standard unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.