Case 8001182/2024 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001182/2024 Held on 22, and April 2025 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr K Low v Cairn Group — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001182/2024
- Decision date
- 29 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001182/2024 Held on 22, and April 2025 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr K Low
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case on 22, 23 and 24 April 2025 and gave its reasons orally on 24 April 2025. It found that the claim for automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded and dismissed it.
It also dismissed the breach of contract claims as not well founded. The numbered conclusions repeat the breach of contract dismissal, but no separate remedy or award is recorded in the judgment text.
The tribunal further dismissed the claim arising from section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as not well founded. No monetary award, interest, or other remedy is identified in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment describes this as a claim for automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the breach of contract claim, described twice in the numbered findings, was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to a claim arising from section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.44 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.