Case 4116487/2018 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: S/4116487/2018 Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Held at Edinburgh on th November 2018 Employment Judge: J G d’Inverno, QVRM, TD, VR, WS (Sitting Alone)10 Mrs L Welsh v Represented by:- Mr J McNulty, HR professional HBOS plc — 2018
- Case reference
- 4116487/2018
- Decision date
- 6 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: S/4116487/2018 Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Held at Edinburgh on th November 2018 Employment Judge: J G d’Inverno, QVRM, TD, VR, WS (Sitting Alone)10 Mrs L Welsh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing in Edinburgh on 24 November 2018, Employment Judge d'Inverno, sitting alone, considered Mrs L Welsh's complaint of unfair dismissal against HBOS PLC. The respondent was represented by Mr M Love, solicitor, and the claimant by Mr J McNulty, HR professional.
The tribunal decided that it had no jurisdiction, under section 111(2)(a) or (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to consider the unfair dismissal complaint. For that reason, the claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The judgment records that oral reasons were given to the parties at the conclusion of the hearing and that no written reasons were attached.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction, under section 111(2)(a) or (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to consider the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 111(2)(a) or (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.