Case 8000402/2025 · Employment Tribunal
: Mr J Burnett and Ms C Rochford Mr W Davidson v 15 CCL North Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000402/2025
- Decision date
- 19 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey Members
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Mr J Burnett, Ms C Rochford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
: Mr J Burnett and Ms C Rochford Mr W Davidson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Glasgow hearing on 16-19 September 2025, the tribunal sat with Employment Judge D Hoey and lay members Mr J Burnett and Ms C Rochford. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal unanimously held that Mr W Davidson was not unfairly dismissed under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that the breach of contract claim was not well founded and dismissed that claim.
The judgment then records that the remaining complaints were dismissed because they were withdrawn during the hearing. No monetary award is recorded in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed pursuant to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found this claim was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Disposed of within the group of 'remaining complaints' that were dismissed as withdrawn during the hearing; the written record gives no separate reasons. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Redundancy | Disposed of within the group of 'remaining complaints' that were dismissed as withdrawn during the hearing; the written record gives no separate reasons. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Disposed of within the group of 'remaining complaints' that were dismissed as withdrawn during the hearing; the written record gives no separate reasons. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Disposed of within the group of 'remaining complaints' that were dismissed as withdrawn during the hearing; the written record gives no separate reasons. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.98 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.