Case 4122617/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Laurette Leach v Limited trading as — 2019
- Case reference
- 4122617/2018
- Decision date
- 27 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McFatridge
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Laurette Leach
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the correct designation of the respondents was Seaforth Hotels Limited trading as Knockderry Country House Hotel. It was dealing only with preliminary issues: the claimant's start date for continuous employment and the identity of the employer.
On the evidence about the claimant's first day, the tribunal preferred the respondents' housekeeper's account of the 3 September 2016 visit over the claimant's version. It found that the claimant was called in to start work, was on the premises under the respondents' instruction, and was paid for that day, even though she did not carry out physical cleaning work and was still in an induction/training stage.
On termination, the tribunal found that the claimant resigned in writing on 15 August 2018, with an agreed final date of 5 September, but that there was a further resignation at the meeting on 31 August 2018, when it was clear she was leaving and not returning. Applying s.97(4) ERA 1996 and the notice provisions in s.86 ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the effective date of termination was 7 September 2018. That gave the claimant continuous employment from 3 September 2016 to 7 September 2018, so she had sufficient qualifying service to bring a claim of unfair constructive dismissal under s.94 ERA 1996. The tribunal expressly made no decision on whether she had in fact been constructively dismissed; that issue was left to the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held the claimant had sufficient qualifying service to bring a claim of unfair constructive dismissal. It did not decide the merits of any unfair dismissal/constructive dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.97(4) ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.94 ERA 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.