Case 8001420/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J McCallum v Robert Lorimer — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001420/2024
- Decision date
- 4 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J McCallum
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J McCallum presented a complaint of unpaid holiday pay, or alternatively unlawful deductions from wages, against Robert Lorimer. The hearing was held by video in Glasgow on 24 April 2025 before Employment Judge M Whitcombe. The respondent did not attend.
The Tribunal held that the complaint was presented outside the time limits in regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, it found that it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.
The complaint was therefore dismissed. Oral reasons were given at the end of the hearing, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Complaint of unpaid holiday pay was presented outside the time limits in regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The alternative complaint of unlawful deductions from wages was also presented outside the time limits in section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 23 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.