Case 4111363/2021 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4111363/2021 (V)5 Held on and December 2024 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr T Smith v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 4111363/2021
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
1 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4111363/2021 (V)5 Held on and December 2024 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr T Smith
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the remitted jurisdiction issues after the earlier decision had been appealed. The claimant had been dismissed on capability grounds on 7 October 2021 and had brought claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The central question on remittal was whether the Tribunal had international jurisdiction under section 15C of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, and if necessary territorial scope for the Equality Act claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal held it had no international jurisdiction under section 15C of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because the Tribunal held it had no international jurisdiction / territorial scope to hear the Equality Act claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s15C Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
- Voogsdgeerd v Navimer
- Olsen v Gearbulk Services Ltd
- Autoclenz v Belcher
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.