Case 8002163/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J. Rhinehart v Circet — 2025
- Case reference
- 8002163/2025
- Decision date
- 15 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J. Rhinehart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing in Glasgow by video/CVP on 9 December 2025, Employment Judge Tinnion corrected the respondent’s name to Circet (UK) Ltd. The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s wages claim under s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim under ss.94-98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The reason recorded was that the claimant accepted he had been employed by the respondent for less than two years, so he did not satisfy the qualifying service position relied on for the claim. The judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that any written reasons would depend on a timely request or a request from the Employment Appeal Tribunal or a competent court.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant accepted that he had been employed by the respondent for less than 2 years, so the unfair dismissal claim under ss.94-98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ss.94-98 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.