Case 4123298/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Date of Judgment: February 2019 Entered in register: February 2019 and copied to parties EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4123298/2018 Preliminary hearing held in Glasgow at pm on nd February 2019 Employment Judge M Whitcombe v Miss I Ali Sixt Rent A Car Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4123298/2018
- Decision date
- 25 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Date of Judgment: February 2019 Entered in register: February 2019 and copied to parties EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4123298/2018 Preliminary hearing held in Glasgow at pm on nd February 2019 Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Glasgow on 22 February 2019 before Employment Judge M Whitcombe. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent filed written submissions.
The tribunal struck out the claim for unfair dismissal on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant lacked the minimum period of continuous service required to bring that claim. No substantive liability findings beyond that jurisdictional point were recorded in the judgment.
No monetary award was made, and the judgment does not record any separate remedy calculation.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out at a preliminary hearing because the claimant lacked the minimum period of continuous service required to bring an unfair dismissal claim. | Struck out | — | — |
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.