Case 4106952/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Ashcroft v Represented by: Ms S Mechan, Solicitor Clyde Maritime Centre Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4106952/2022
- Decision date
- 29 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Mackay
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Ashcroft
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing in Glasgow on 27 June 2023, Employment Judge R Mackay dismissed the claimant's age discrimination claim. The tribunal held that the claim pleaded a single act of alleged discrimination, not a course of conduct. It found that the alleged act took place during a without prejudice conversation on 21 July 2022 and therefore attracted privilege, and the tribunal did not consider it appropriate to lift that privilege.
The tribunal also held that the allegation was presented out of time. No submission was made that the tribunal should extend time on a just and equitable basis. The judgment records that the pleadings are to be redacted to remove references to the without prejudice conversation, witnesses will not be permitted to give evidence about it, and documents at pages 54 to 63 of the bundle are subject to without prejudice privilege and are not to be produced at the final hearing. The case is to proceed to a final hearing on the claimant's remaining claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Determined at a preliminary hearing on 27 June 2023. The tribunal held that the claim was based on a single alleged act rather than a course of conduct, that the alleged act occurred in a without prejudice conversation on 21 July 2022 and was privileged, that it was not appropriate to lift that privilege, and that the allegation was in any event out of time with no submission for a just and equitable extension. | Dismissed | Age | — |
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.