Case 4113564/2021 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4113564/20215 Held on May 2022 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr D Stewart v Atalian Servest Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4113564/2021
- Decision date
- 10 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hosie Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4113564/20215 Held on May 2022 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr D Stewart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim of unfair dismissal after submitting his claim form on 1 December 2021. The respondent argued that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction because the matter had been settled through ACAS under a COT3 Agreement dated 9 December 2021.
At the preliminary hearing, the claimant confirmed that he had signed the COT3 Agreement and had trade union advice at the time, but said he did not realise he had waived his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the agreement's terms were clear: it related to the same claim form and Early Conciliation number, and provided for full and final settlement of all potential claims against the respondent, including claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Having regard to the overriding objective in the Rules of Procedure, the tribunal dismissed the claim. The tribunal recorded that the claimant accepted the position after it was explained to him at the preliminary hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the tribunal found the claim had been settled via ACAS under a COT3 Agreement dated 9 December 2021, with terms waiving Employment Rights Act 1996 claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- overriding objective
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.