Case 8003028/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Coetzee v Portsonachan Hotel — 2026
- Case reference
- 8003028/2025
- Decision date
- 2 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Coetzee
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Ms C Coetzee appeared in person at a hearing held in Glasgow by Cloud Video Platform on 29 May 2026. The respondent, Portsonachan Hotel, had filed no ET3 and did not appear.
Employment Judge R McPherson held that the Employment Tribunal did not have jurisdiction in relation to the claimant's claims. The judgment therefore dismissed all claims. The written judgment does not set out the jurisdictional reason or any separate analysis of the breach of contract, unlawful deduction from wages, or working time claims.
No remedy was awarded. The judgment records that summary reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written summary reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction in relation to the claimant's claims and that all claims were dismissed; it does not set out separate reasons for this claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction in relation to the claimant's claims and that all claims were dismissed; it does not set out separate reasons for this claim type. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction in relation to the claimant's claims and that all claims were dismissed; it does not set out separate reasons for this claim type. | 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.