Case 8002237/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T McCabe v St Choice Horse Supplies Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 8002237/2024
- Decision date
- 24 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sangster
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T McCabe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard in Glasgow by Cloud Video Platform on 23 April 2025 before Employment Judge Sangster. Mr T McCabe appeared in person and 1st Choice Horse Supplies Limited was represented by Miss S McKenzie. The written judgment is dated 24 April 2025.
The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant's complaints. Oral reasons were given at the hearing under Rule 60 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The judgment does not record any substantive merits findings or any monetary award, and states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the date the judgment was sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records only that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant's complaints; it does not make separate merits findings on this complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records only that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant's complaints; it does not make separate merits findings on this complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records only that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant's complaints; it does not make separate merits findings on this complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.