Case 8000583/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R McDermott v C D Leisure (Glasgow) Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000583/2025
- Decision date
- 15 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R McDermott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the remaining unfair dismissal complaint. It held that Mr McDermott did not have the required two years' qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal claim and had not indicated in his pleadings or later correspondence that he was relying on any exception to that requirement.
On 15 April 2025 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 28 April 2025 or to request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. No reply was received.
The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The reason given was that the claimant lacked two years' qualifying service and had not relied on any pleaded exception to that requirement. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- two years' qualifying service for unfair dismissal
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.