Case 4105794/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 4105794/2015 Ms. L Allard v NHS Highlands — 2026
- Case reference
- 4105794/2015
- Decision date
- 20 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 4105794/2015 Ms. L Allard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Ms L Allard's claim against NHS Highlands under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it had not been actively pursued within rule 38(1)(d). The judgment does not separately identify the substantive causes of action; the supplied listing categories describe them as unlawful deduction from wages and working time claims.
On 30 March 2026, the Tribunal gave Ms Allard until 8 April 2026 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing on that issue. The Tribunal found that she had neither provided an acceptable reason why a strike-out judgment should not be made nor requested a hearing, and therefore struck out the claim. No monetary remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and does not identify its substantive causes of action. This classification follows the supplied listing category and is therefore uncertain. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and does not identify its substantive causes of action. This classification follows the supplied listing category and is therefore uncertain. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.