Case 8001495/2025 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001495/2025 Preliminary Hearing at Edinburgh on October 2025 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Mr M McCool v Ability Hotels (Aberdeen) Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001495/2025
- Decision date
- 15 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001495/2025 Preliminary Hearing at Edinburgh on October 2025 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Mr M McCool
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 10 October 2025, Employment Judge M A Macleod considered the respondent's application to strike out Mr M McCool's claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024. The claimant, who appeared in person, said the respondent had misrepresented the job offer and induced him to leave other work. The tribunal noted that the ET1 did not clearly identify a statutory basis, but held that it could be read more broadly as a breach of contract claim within the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994.
The tribunal then examined the claimant's reliance on the email chain of 1 and 2 April 2025, including the heading "Invitation to Interview for GSA Position 16hrs at HBH Edinburgh Airport" and the phrase offering a "casual contract". It rejected the claimant's interpretation that the heading or wording showed an offer of a 16-hour employment contract with employee status, continuity of employment, or guaranteed hours. The judge found the email clear and unambiguous, and held that the omission of the word "a" before "casual" made no difference to its meaning.
Applying the claim at its highest, and taking account of the undisputed contemporaneous emails, the tribunal found there was no reasonable prospect of proving that the respondent contracted to employ the claimant for a minimum of 16 hours per week and then breached that contract. The judge also noted that no findings could be made about any conversations that may have taken place between the parties. The claim was therefore struck out under Rule 38 as lacking any reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The ET1 was framed by the claimant as misrepresentation in recruitment, but the tribunal treated it as at most a breach of contract claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994 and struck it out under Rule 38 for lack of reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- Mansfield Care Limited v Leah Newman and Ors, Rollandene Limited
- Sarker v South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
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.