Case 6011814/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Wilson v New Futures (Scotland) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011814/2025
- Decision date
- 9 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case in Glasgow on 9 June 2025 before Employment Judge M Whitcombe. It found that the sole or principal reason for Mr Wilson's dismissal was not the fact that he had made a protected disclosure for the purposes of section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
It then held that the complaint of unfair dismissal failed because Mr Wilson did not have sufficient qualifying service to bring a claim under sections 94 and 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Oral reasons were given at the end of the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the sole or principal reason for dismissal was not the fact that the claimant had made a protected disclosure for the purposes of section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It then held that the unfair dismissal complaint failed because the claimant lacked sufficient qualifying service under sections 94 and 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 94 and 108 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.