Case 4108668/2015 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4108668/2015 & Others Mr S Armour & Others v Strathclyde Partnership for Transport — 2018
- Case reference
- 4108668/2015
- Decision date
- 6 September 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4108668/2015 & Others Mr S Armour & Others
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a multiple-claimant employment tribunal case brought by Mr S Armour and others against Strathclyde Partnership for Transport. The extracted judgment does not set out any substantive findings on liability, because the claims were withdrawn by the claimants before determination.
Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman recorded that, following withdrawal, the claims were dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment is dated 24 August 2018 and was entered in the register and copied to the parties on 6 September 2018.
The extracted text identifies the claimants in the attached schedule as Mr S Armour, Mr G Cameron, Mr J Donachie, Mrs M Ford, Mr J Jack, Mrs A McIlwain and Mr G Reid. No remedy, findings of fact, or legal analysis on the underlying dispute are set out in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment states only that the claims were withdrawn by the claimants and dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. No substantive cause of action is identified in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.