Case 8001933/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Sneddon v ’s son)15 Tillicoultry Quarries Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001933/2024
- Decision date
- 3 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Sneddon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Glasgow, chaired by Employment Judge M Whitcombe, heard the case on 26 and 27 March 2025 and issued judgment on 3 April 2025. The claimant, Mr D Sneddon, was represented by his son, and the respondent, Tillicoultry Quarries Limited, was represented by a solicitor.
The sole determination recorded in the judgment was that Mr Sneddon was not constructively dismissed for the purposes of section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the tribunal held that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was not well-founded and dismissed it.
Oral reasons were given at the end of the hearing in the presence of the parties or their representatives. The judgment records that no request was made for written reasons, and it does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was not constructively dismissed for the purposes of section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996, and therefore the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 95(1)(c) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.