Case 4110429/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Represented by Mr C Scougal, Lay representative. 20 Desmond Maguire Ltd v Represented by25 Ms R Edwards, Solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 4110429/2021
- Decision date
- 8 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Young
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Represented by Mr C Scougal, Lay representative. 20 Desmond Maguire Ltd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge J Young in Steven Whitelaw v Desmond Maguire Ltd. The tribunal considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint. The respondent accepted that the claimant had been dismissed, but relied on the lack of the qualifying period under s108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The parties were agreed that, at best, the claimant’s continuous employment ran from 26 October 2020 to 24 May 2021. On that basis, the tribunal found that the period of service was short of the requisite two years. It therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim, and that complaint was dismissed.
The tribunal also noted a separate issue about notice pay. The claimant’s contract provided for one month’s notice, while the attached disciplinary procedure was described as non-contractual and stated that no notice or pay in lieu would be due in the event of gross misconduct. Those notice-pay issues were not determined at this hearing and were left for a final hearing to be fixed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant did not have the two-year qualifying period under s108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s108 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.