Case 4107639/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Hugh Moore v Stack and Still Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4107639/2021
- Decision date
- 19 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Hugh Moore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing by telephone conference call on 13 April 2021 before Employment Judge P O’Donnell, the claimant, Mr Hugh Moore, was recorded as appearing in person and the respondent, Stack and Still Limited, as represented by a solicitor. The judgment records that the claims had been withdrawn before determination.
The tribunal dismissed the withdrawn claims under Rule 52. The claims listed were breach of contract, unfair dismissal for asserting a statutory right under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, unfair dismissal/detriment for having been subject to a breach of procedures, and detriment for making a protected disclosure under section 47B ERA 1996.
No liability findings on the merits and no remedy award are recorded in the judgment. The entry date in the register is 19 April 2021.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Withdrawn before determination and dismissed under Rule 52. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim described as unfair dismissal for asserting a statutory right under section 104 ERA 1996; withdrawn before determination and dismissed under Rule 52. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim described in the judgment as unfair dismissal/detriment for having been subject to a breach of procedures; treated as other because the judgment does not identify a standard taxonomy label. Withdrawn before determination and dismissed under Rule 52. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim described as detriment for making a protected disclosure under section 47B ERA 1996; withdrawn before determination and dismissed under Rule 52. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.