Case 4111419/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Nightingale House Ayrshire Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4111419/2021
- Decision date
- 9 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing on 2 March 2022 before Employment Judge P Smith, the parties told the tribunal that they had agreed terms of settlement in principle. The judgment records that the claims were sisted to allow those terms to be implemented.
The tribunal directed that if either party wished the sist to be lifted and the matter restored, they had to write to the tribunal before 13 April 2022. If neither party did so, the claims would stand dismissed on that date without further order. The written judgment records no substantive liability findings or monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The parties agreed terms of settlement in principle. The tribunal sisted the claims to allow implementation of those terms, with a direction that if neither party wrote to lift the sist by 13 April 2022 the claims would stand dismissed without further order. | Settled | — | — |
| Redundancy | The parties agreed terms of settlement in principle. The tribunal sisted the claims to allow implementation of those terms, with a direction that if neither party wrote to lift the sist by 13 April 2022 the claims would stand dismissed without further order. | Settled | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The parties agreed terms of settlement in principle. The tribunal sisted the claims to allow implementation of those terms, with a direction that if neither party wrote to lift the sist by 13 April 2022 the claims would stand dismissed without further order. | Settled | — | — |
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.