Case 4103957/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Member J McCaig Tribunal Member P O’Hagan Ms J Lota v Glasgow City Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103957/2024
- Decision date
- 22 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Walker Tribunal
- Panel members
- J McCaig, P O’Hagan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member J McCaig Tribunal Member P O’Hagan Ms J Lota
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal postponed the final hearing listed for 21 to 25 October 2024 after an application was made shortly before the hearing on the basis that the claimant was unwell and unable to attend. The claimant's representative said medical evidence was not yet available, but understood that the claimant had suffered an anxiety attack at the prospect of the hearing and had been prescribed medication.
The respondents did not object to postponement, but requested medical evidence addressing the claimant's condition, fitness to attend, likely timescale for attendance, and any adjustments that might assist participation. The tribunal ordered the claimant to provide that evidence within 28 days and directed that a preliminary hearing for case management would be listed after it was received.
The parties confirmed that the claim against the First Respondent had been withdrawn, and the tribunal dismissed that claim under rule 52. The tribunal also recorded clarification that there was no complaint of indirect discrimination and no complaint of religion discrimination.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that the claim against the First Respondent, Glasgow City Council, had been withdrawn and was dismissed under rule 52. It does not adjudicate the substantive claims listed for the final hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 52
- Presidential Guidance on Postponements
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.