Case 4101323/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Natasha Livingston v Represented by: Mr C O’Shea - Lay Representative GMD Community Services Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 4101323/2025
- Decision date
- 24 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Campbell
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Natasha Livingston
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Glasgow on 23 February 2026, Employment Judge Campbell heard the respondent’s application in Ms Natasha Livingston v GMD Community Services Limited. The written judgment records that the claim was struck out on the respondent’s application because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The written text does not set out the underlying factual or legal reasoning for that conclusion, other than to state that the reasons were given orally at the hearing. It therefore records the dispositive order only, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment only records that 'the claim' was struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. This claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing categories provided in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment only records that 'the claim' was struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. This claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing categories provided in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written judgment only records that 'the claim' was struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. This claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing categories provided in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.