Case 4106572/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Thomson v – Solicitor Dalziel Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4106572/2020
- Decision date
- 23 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Thomson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 8 January 2021 before Employment Judge Peter O’Donnell, the claimant was represented by Mr Brown and the respondent by Mr Philp. The claimant brought complaints of constructive unfair dismissal and sex discrimination. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Brown withdrew the sex discrimination claim, and the tribunal dismissed that claim under Rule 52 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal did not determine the merits of the constructive unfair dismissal complaint at this stage. Instead, it recorded that further specification was needed of the alleged acts or omissions relied on, when and how they occurred, any witnesses, the final straw said to amount to a material breach, and the basis of the complaint said to have been made to a "Superior". It also directed the claimant to provide a copy of any written holiday request said to have been refused in January 2020, or alternatively to specify when, to whom and how the request was made.
The tribunal noted that the respondent raised no jurisdictional issue. It directed the claimant to provide a preliminary schedule of loss and a preliminary schedule of mitigation, ordered a joint bundle, and listed a further telephone preliminary hearing for 10 March 2021 to deal with listing the final hearing, witnesses, the length and format of the hearing, and other case management matters.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The sex discrimination claim was withdrawn at the hearing and dismissed under Rule 52 with no objection. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.