Case 8000752/2024 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000752/2024 Fiona McClean v C-Plan Telecommunications Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000752/2024
- Decision date
- 9 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000752/2024 Fiona McClean
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a rule 21 judgment because neither respondent presented a response to the claim. On the material available, the Employment Judge found that the claimant's complaint of sex discrimination succeeded against both respondents.
The tribunal also found that the claimant's complaint of failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions succeeded against the first respondent, C-Plan Telecommunications Limited. The judgment did not record any monetary award at this stage.
Remedy was not determined in the judgment itself. The tribunal directed that the remedy hearing would take place remotely by video, with a time allocation of 3 hours, and that a notice of hearing and directions would follow separately.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Rule 21 judgment: the claimant's complaint of sex discrimination succeeded against both respondents. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Other | Rule 21 judgment: the claimant's complaint of failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions succeeded against the first respondent. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.