Case 4103492/2017 · Employment Tribunal

M i s s Morag Jardine v S m i t h - Solicitor The Scottish Ministers — 2018

Case reference: 4103492/2017
Decision date: 4 September 2018
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge Ian McPherson
Venue: Glasgow o n

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

M i s s Morag Jardine

Respondent

S m i t h - Solicitor The Scottish Ministers

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a case management preliminary hearing on 16 August 2018, the tribunal considered the claimant's withdrawal of certain parts of her claim. The judgment records that the complaint under section 12(3) of the Employment Relations Act 1999, concerning dismissal for seeking trade union representation at a disciplinary meeting, had been withdrawn by the claimant's representative on 28 December 2017.

The tribunal issued a Rule 52 judgment dismissing that section 12(3) part of the claim because the claimant had not reserved the right to bring a further claim on the same complaint. It also refused the respondents' application for a dismissal judgment in respect of the withdrawn Equality Act 2010 parts of the case, and those remaining parts were recorded as still standing and listed to proceed to the final hearing on 21 to 28 January 2019.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	Complaint under section 12(3) of the Employment Relations Act 1999, relating to dismissal for seeking trade union representation at a disciplinary meeting. The claimant's representative withdrew this part of the claim on 28 December 2017, and the tribunal dismissed it under Rule 52 because the claimant had not reserved the right to bring a further claim on the same complaint.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.