Case 4103622/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Classick v Represented by:20 Not present Scottish Social Services Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 4103622/2022
- Decision date
- 20 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Classick
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard in Glasgow on 20 December 2022 before Employment Judge D Hoey. The claimant, Miss S Classick, appeared on her own behalf. The first respondent was The Richmond Fellowship Scotland (operating under that name) and the second respondent was the Scottish Social Services Council.
The tribunal decided a jurisdiction issue only. It dismissed the claimant’s claims against the second respondent because the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. No merits findings were made in this written record in relation to those claims.
The tribunal recorded that the claims against the first respondent would proceed. The judgment does not set out the substantive claims, any liability findings, or any remedy. It also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons would be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claims as against the second respondent, Scottish Social Services Council, were dismissed because the Employment Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear them. The claims against the first respondent were to proceed. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.