Case 4113043/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Chris McIntyre v Archibald Investment Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4113043/2019
- Decision date
- 19 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Chris McIntyre
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim form was sent to the respondent on 10 January 2020. The respondent did not enter a response by 7 February 2020, or at all. The Employment Judge considered the available material sufficient to determine liability without a hearing under the Rules of Procedure.
The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed as being outwith the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal because the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service. The judgment states that this was because of section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant's complaints of failure to pay notice pay and arrears of pay succeeded. The tribunal did not determine the amount payable in this judgment, and said that the remedy for those two heads of complaint would be fixed at a hearing to be arranged later.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have the two years' qualifying service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so the tribunal said the complaint was outwith its jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint described as failure to pay notice pay; it succeeded, with remedy to be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint described as arrears of pay; it succeeded, with remedy to be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 of the 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.