Case 4111752/2018 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4111752/2018 Held in Glasgow on November 2018 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Ms Zelia Maria Quintal Simpson v The Good Care Group London Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 4111752/2018
- Decision date
- 26 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge WA Meiklejohn
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4111752/2018 Held in Glasgow on November 2018 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Ms Zelia Maria Quintal Simpson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Glasgow on 14 November 2018 before Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn, with the Claimant appearing in person and the Respondent represented by Mr M Dempsey, Advocate. The only issue identified was whether the Claimant had qualifying service for an unfair dismissal claim.
The Claimant accepted that she did not have the necessary qualifying period of employment with The Good Care Group London Limited to pursue an unfair dismissal claim. The reasons state that she withdrew the unfair dismissal claim on that basis.
In light of that concession and withdrawal, the tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. No separate remedy was awarded or addressed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The issue at the preliminary hearing was whether the Claimant had the qualifying period of employment needed to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The Claimant accepted that she did not have the necessary qualifying period and withdrew the claim; the tribunal then dismissed it. | 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.