Case 4105229/2016 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105229/2016 Preliminary Hearing at Edinburgh on March 2017 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Belinda Merrilees v Kestrel Ophthalmics Ltd and 2 others — 2017
- Case reference
- 4105229/2016
- Decision date
- 4 April 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo
Parties
4 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105229/2016 Preliminary Hearing at Edinburgh on March 2017 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Belinda Merrilees
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal record states that Ms B Merrilees withdrew her claim against Kestrel Ophthalmics Limited. The judgment therefore dismisses the claim under Rule 52 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
No liability findings, legal tests, or remedy calculations are set out in the extracted judgment text. The only substantive procedural outcome recorded is dismissal following withdrawal, with the judgment entered on 09 June 2017 and copied to the parties on that date.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records that the claim had been withdrawn by the claimant and was dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment text does not itself specify the substantive claim type; classification follows the case listing category for public interest disclosure. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.