Case 8002424/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Barr v South Lanarkshire Leisure and Culture SCIO — 2025
- Case reference
- 8002424/2025
- Decision date
- 2 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sorrell
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Barr
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Barr presented a claim including constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, whistleblowing, age discrimination and arrears of pay, and applied for interim relief on 2 November 2025. The hearing took place in Glasgow before Employment Judge Sorrell on 14 November 2025. At the outset, the respondent argued that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the constructive dismissal claim. Because the claimant was unrepresented and had not previously seen the ET3 response, the hearing was adjourned for an hour so that he could consider the point, after which both sides made oral submissions.
The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the constructive unfair dismissal claim and therefore the claimant's application for interim relief could not proceed. The written record states that an oral judgment with reasons was given at the hearing and that written reasons were not requested. No merits findings or monetary award are recorded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the constructive unfair dismissal claim, so the claimant's application for interim relief could not proceed. The judgment does not determine the merits of the wider pleaded discrimination, whistleblowing, age discrimination, or arrears of pay claims. | 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.