Case 4103825/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Lothian Health Board — 2022
- Case reference
- 4103825/2022
- Decision date
- 19 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim described as determining a main term of contract, concerning an asserted contractual right to work from home. She said a previous line manager had agreed in December 2020 that she could work from home, and that a current line manager refused this in April 2022, although she had continued to work from home.
The tribunal accepted the respondent's submission that, if the claim was a breach of contract claim, it had no jurisdiction while the claimant remained employed. It also found the claim was not one for provision of employment particulars and that the tribunal had no freestanding power to interpret contractual terms.
The claimant had referred to possible Equality Act issues in the claim form, but stated that she was not presenting a discrimination claim. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction as currently pled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim was dismissed because the tribunal decided it had no jurisdiction to determine the claim as pled while the claimant continued to be employed. The claimant sought interpretation of an alleged contractual right to work from home; the tribunal found it was not a claim for employment particulars and there was no freestanding power to interpret contract terms. | 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.