Case 4102917/2023 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102917/2023 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) at Edinburgh on August 2023 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Lisa Collier v West Lothian Leisure — 2023
- Case reference
- 4102917/2023
- Decision date
- 22 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102917/2023 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) at Edinburgh on August 2023 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Lisa Collier
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 21 August 2023, Employment Judge M A Macleod held that the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed because she had worked for the respondent for less than two years, having been employed from 10 July 2021 to 28 February 2023. The ET1 only ticked unfair dismissal, and the tribunal noted that no automatic unfair dismissal case had been pleaded. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed for want of jurisdiction under section 108(1).
The claimant also referred to a separate allegation of sexual harassment involving a customer at the gym in the same building as her workplace, and said that the respondent had failed to protect her. The tribunal said that aspect was not clearly formulated on the papers, that the customer was not employed by the respondent, and that there could therefore be no vicarious liability for his actions. Rather than disposing of the entire case, the tribunal ordered the claimant to provide further written specification of any Equality Act 2010 claim by 4 September 2023, including the statutory basis relied on, the acts said to amount to unlawful discrimination or sexual harassment, the basis for respondent responsibility, and whether dismissal was said to be discriminatory.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claimant did not have the 2 years' qualifying service required by s.108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996, and no automatic unfair dismissal claim was pleaded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 27 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Unite the Union v Nailard 2019 ICR 28
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.