Case 4102123/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Janice Fraser v Association Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4102123/2022
- Decision date
- 20 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Shepherd
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Janice Fraser
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was held remotely by telephone on 17 June 2022 before Employment Judge J Shepherd. The parties agreed that the correct respondent was Hillcrest Homes (Scotland) Limited, and the written judgment records that the claims against Hillcrest Housing Association Ltd were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant under rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
No substantive liability findings or remedy awards were recorded. The judgment is procedural only and does not determine the merits of the underlying claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claims were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. The underlying claim type is taken from the case listing context; the judgment itself does not set out the individual claim breakdown. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the claims were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. The underlying claim type is taken from the case listing context; the judgment itself does not set out the individual claim breakdown. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claims were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. The underlying claim type is taken from the case listing context; the judgment itself does not set out the individual claim breakdown. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.