Case 4110800/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4110800/2019 (C) Reconsideration on papers on October 2020 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Mr G Tobias v Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 4110800/2019
- Decision date
- 27 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sandy Meiklejohn
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4110800/2019 (C) Reconsideration on papers on October 2020 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Mr G Tobias
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal reconsidered its earlier decision, sent to the parties on 27 August 2020, striking out the claim under Rule 37(1)(e) on the basis that it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing. The claimant argued that the tribunal had made no finding about who sent an anonymous email, had been influenced by the respondent's submissions, and had not properly assessed whether the respondent's witnesses were sufficiently intimidated.
The tribunal maintained that the relevant issue was the impact of the email, not the identity of its sender. It found the evidence of Mr Fisher and Ms Tobias credible and remained satisfied that they had been intimidated and would have faced giving evidence with fear of consequences. The tribunal considered that this meant a fair hearing was no longer possible.
The tribunal also reconsidered possible alternatives, including Rule 50 measures and a sist pending the outcome of a police investigation, but remained of the view that strike out was the proportionate response. The application for reconsideration was refused and the original strike out judgment was confirmed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment is a reconsideration decision. It refused the claimant's Rule 70 application and confirmed the original judgment striking out the claim under Rule 37(1)(e). The underlying claim type is inferred from the listing category 'Contract of Employment' because the reconsideration judgment does not describe the substantive claim in detail. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 70 of the Tribunal Rules
- Rule 72 of the Tribunal Rules
- Rule 37(1)(e) of the Tribunal Rules
- Rule 2 overriding objective
- Rule 50 of the Tribunal Rules
- Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
- Bolch v Chipman EAT/1150/02
- Force One Utilities Ltd v Hatfield UKEAT/0048/08
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.