Case 4102324/2017 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102324/2017 Mrs Ellen Mart v Assessment Inc Ltd — 2017
- Case reference
- 4102324/2017
- Decision date
- 19 October 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Ian McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102324/2017 Mrs Ellen Mart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the case management preliminary hearing on 6 October 2017, Mrs Ellen Mart told the tribunal that she wished to withdraw her unfair constructive dismissal complaint. She accepted the respondents' position that she did not have two years' qualifying service to bring that claim. The tribunal treated her oral statement as confirmation of her earlier written withdrawal under Rule 51 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judge then issued a Rule 52 judgment dismissing that part of the claim. The judgment records that the dismissal followed the claimant's withdrawal and means she may not bring a further complaint against the respondents raising the same, or substantially the same, unfair constructive dismissal complaint arising from the termination of her employment as a Disability Analyst on 15 May 2017.
The claimant's remaining complaint, pleaded under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 as unlawful indirect disability discrimination, was not determined at this hearing. It remained standing and was listed to proceed to a further case management preliminary hearing on 15 December 2017.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant withdrew the unfair constructive dismissal complaint at the preliminary hearing. The tribunal treated the oral withdrawal as confirmation of the written withdrawal and issued a Rule 52 judgment dismissing that part of the claim. | 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.