Case 4113183/2015 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4113183/2015 & other Mr G MacLean & other v (See attached schedule) Board Of Management Of Moray College — 2018
- Case reference
- 4113183/2015
- Decision date
- 12 October 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4113183/2015 & other Mr G MacLean & other
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment is a short procedural disposal covering linked claims by Mr William McLean and Mr Grant MacLean against the Board of Management of Moray College. It records that the claims had been withdrawn by the claimants.
The tribunal therefore dismissed the claims under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. No substantive liability findings or remedy awards are set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Linked claim in the attached schedule (4113182/2015, Mr William McLean). The judgment itself is procedural only and states that the claim had been withdrawn by the claimants and was dismissed under Rule 52. The case listing was Working Time Regulations. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Linked claim in the attached schedule (4113183/2015, Mr Grant MacLean). The judgment itself is procedural only and states that the claim had been withdrawn by the claimants and was dismissed under Rule 52. The case listing was Working Time Regulations. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.