Case 4123630/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Veitch v Jacqueline McDougall — 2019
- Case reference
- 4123630/2018
- Decision date
- 19 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D O’Dempsey
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Veitch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that J & P O'Donnell (Sisters) Ltd, the second respondent, was the claimant's employer. On that basis, the claim against the first respondent, Jacqueline McDougall, was dismissed.
The tribunal then sisted the claim until 12 November 2019 to allow the claimant to apply to the Secretary of State for a payment under s.166 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was directed to tell the tribunal by that date whether she was continuing with the claim or withdrawing it, and, if continuing, to provide the date on which the company had been restored to the register at Companies House.
The judgment also provided that if no notification was received by 12 November 2019, and absent cause shown, the claim would be dismissed. No remedy or monetary award was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the second respondent was the claimant's employer and dismissed the claim against the first respondent. The substantive claim was sisted pending the claimant's application to the Secretary of State for a payment under s.166 ERA 1996, so this judgment did not finally determine the merits or make a monetary award. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.166 Employment Rights Act 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.