Case 4110419/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Jackson v J P Fabrication And Design — 2019
- Case reference
- 4110419/2019
- Decision date
- 12 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Jackson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 19 November 2019 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 3 December 2019, or to request a hearing, to explain why part of the claim should not be struck out. The tribunal then considered the claim form on its face and noted that the claimant had less than two years' service and was not relying on any form of automatically unfair dismissal that might create an exception.
The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Mark Whitcombe struck out that part of the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success under rule 37(1)(a).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that part of the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The reasons refer to the claimant having less than 2 years' service and not relying on any form of automatically unfair dismissal. The extracted text does not identify any separate disposal of any wages claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(a)
- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.