Case 4113050/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 4113050/2015 Mrs A Ramage v NHS Greater Glasgow And Clyde — 2026
- Case reference
- 4113050/2015
- Decision date
- 20 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 4113050/2015 Mrs A Ramage
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Mrs A Ramage's claim against NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it had not been actively pursued within rule 38(1)(d). The judgment does not determine the substantive merits of the claims.
On 8 April 2026, the Tribunal gave Mrs Ramage until 15 April 2026 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing to consider that issue. The Tribunal found that she had neither provided an acceptable reason why a strike-out judgment should not be made nor requested a hearing, and therefore struck out the claim. No monetary remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and does not separately identify the pleaded causes of action. This classification follows the supplied listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and does not separately identify the pleaded causes of action. This classification follows the supplied listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.