Case 4113411/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4113411/2019 Mr John Christie v Eric Wright Water Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4113411/2019
- Decision date
- 17 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4113411/2019 Mr John Christie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that no response had been presented to the claim. A copy of the claim form was sent to the respondent on 28 November 2019, and the respondent failed to enter a response within the 28-day period required by Rule 16 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
Applying Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made on the available material without a hearing on liability. The judgment therefore held that Mr John Christie’s complaint of unfair dismissal against Eric Wright Water Limited, said to relate to 13 September 2019, succeeded.
The tribunal did not assess remedy in this judgment. It stated that the remedy would be determined later at a hearing before an Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Determined under Rule 21 because no response was presented. Liability succeeded; remedy was not decided in this judgment and was fixed for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 16 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.