Case 4113089/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T McCulloch v Mr Harpreet Ray — 2019
- Case reference
- 4113089/2018
- Decision date
- 29 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Hoey
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T McCulloch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case as a remedy hearing with no response lodged by either respondent and no representation for either respondent. The only claim raised was unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that the claimant, Miss T McCulloch, began work in June 2014, that the business and employer arrangements changed over time, and that from 5 March 2017 until dismissal on 4 May 2018 she was paid by Mmm Retail Limited. Her P45 also named the second respondent as employer, so the tribunal found that Mmm Retail Limited was her employer at the date of dismissal and dismissed the claim against Mr Harpreet Ray.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim of unfair dismissal succeeded against the second respondent, Mmm Retail Limited. The claim against the first respondent, Mr Harpreet Ray, was dismissed because the tribunal found the second respondent was the claimant's employer at the date of dismissal. | Upheld | — | £7,910 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,910
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £630
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,280
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 119 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 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.