Orbital Express Launch Ltd
Case Summary
The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed due to the claimant having less than 2 years' service. The respondent’s application for strike out was refused, and the case will proceed to a one-day final hearing.
Key Issues
- •Claimant's disability and its impact on employment
- •Reasonable prospects of success for discrimination claim
Claim Types
Cited Laws and Legal Issues
The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed due to the claimant having less
ths and ticked the boxes claiming unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. In a few short paragraphs he explained that he belie
rust v Ezsias [2007] IRLR 603 observed that in whistleblowing (and discrimination) cases in particular it would be
Decision Text
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000760/2024 5 Held in Glasgow via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on 17 February 2025 Deliberations – 26 March 2025 Employment Judge D Hoey Mr S Ryder Claimant 10 In Person Orbital Express Launch Limited Respondent 15 Represented by: Mr S Hoyle - Solicitor JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL 20 1. The unfair dismissal complaint is dismissed having been withdrawn by the claimant (as he had less than 2 years’ service). 2. The respondent’s application for strike out which failing a deposit order is refused. 3. The claim will now proceed to a one day final hearing before an Employment 25 Judge sitting alone on a date to be fixed with a case management order being issued along with this Judgment. REASONS Background 1. On 3 June 2024 the claimant presented an ET1 stating that he had worked 30 for the respondent for a few months and ticked the boxes claiming unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. In a few short paragraphs he explained that he believed once his disability had been disclosed the respondent’s 8000760/2024 Page 2 approach to him changed and he felt the respondent wanted “the problem” to go away. 2. The respondent in their response said the claimant had gone sick without a fit note being submitted and his probation was not confirmed and his employment was terminated. As the claimant did not have sufficient service 5 to claim unfair dismissal it was assumed that complaint was not proceeding and there was no...
Employer
Employment Details
- Industry
- Manufacturing
- Representation
- Litigant in person
Case Details
- Case Number
- 8000760/2024
- Decision Date
- 21/07/2025
- Published
- 18/08/2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey