Case 4106944/2019 · Employment Tribunal
69(scot) claim dismissed on withdrawal rule EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No 4106944/2019 Ms L Crabb v Represented by: Mr N Whelan Solicitor W Brown Roadworks Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4106944/2019
- Decision date
- 28 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McFatridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
69(scot) claim dismissed on withdrawal rule EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No 4106944/2019 Ms L Crabb
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment is a short disposal order in Ms L Crabb v W Brown Roadworks Limited. It records that the claimant was represented by Mr N Whelan, solicitor, and the respondent by Mr R Russell, solicitor. The only substantive determination is procedural: the claim had been withdrawn by the claimant.
Because the claim was withdrawn, Employment Judge Ian McFatridge dismissed it under Rule 52 of the Rules contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment is dated 28 October 2019 and was sent to the parties on the same date. No substantive findings on liability or remedy are recorded in the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal recorded that the claim had been withdrawn by the claimant and was dismissed under Rule 52 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment text does not specify the underlying cause of action. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 52 of the Rules contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.