Case 4106932/2023 · Employment Tribunal
16 B(Scot) Rule judgment on liability, remedy to be determined at a hearing EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106932/2023 Nicola Audrey Walsh v John Boyle & Co Solicitors — 2024
- Case reference
- 4106932/2023
- Decision date
- 23 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
16 B(Scot) Rule judgment on liability, remedy to be determined at a hearing EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106932/2023 Nicola Audrey Walsh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment on liability only. The claim form was sent to the respondent on 15 November 2023, and the respondent did not enter a response within the required 28 days. The Employment Judge decided that liability could properly be determined on the available material without a hearing, but that remedy could not, so no remedy decision was made at this stage.
The judgment records that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination succeed. It does not set out the underlying factual findings for those complaints in this liability-only decision. The judgment is marked as a corrected version, and the remedy is expressly left to be determined at a later hearing before an Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment states the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded; no separate factual findings or remedy figure are given in this liability judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Rule 21 judgment states the claimant's disability discrimination complaint succeeded; no separate factual findings or remedy figure are given in this liability judgment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
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.