Case 4122244/2018 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4122244/2018 Mr S Stewart v M&G Logistics Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4122244/2018
- Decision date
- 10 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Muriel Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4122244/2018 Mr S Stewart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The claim form was sent to the respondent on 1 November 2018, but the respondent did not enter a response within the required 28 days. On the material available, the Employment Judge decided that liability could be determined without a hearing, but remedy could not.
The tribunal held that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and failure to provide a statement of employment particulars succeeded. The judgment does not set out detailed findings on the underlying facts of the dismissal or the particulars claim, because the decision was made on the available material in the absence of a response.
The tribunal directed that remedy would be determined at a later hearing before an Employment Judge. No monetary award is set out in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Succeeded on the papers under Rule 21; the judgment did not determine remedy at this stage. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment describes this as a failure to provide a statement of employment particulars. The claim succeeded, but no remedy was determined in this judgment. | 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.