Case 8000099/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Wilson v Diageo Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000099/2025
- Decision date
- 1 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether it had power to consider an interim relief application where the claimant had sought to amend existing proceedings to add unfair dismissal and interim relief within seven days of dismissal, but the amendment application was not granted until after that seven-day period expired.
The tribunal held that a complaint of unfair dismissal can be presented by an amendment application in ongoing proceedings. It found that the claimant's complaint was presented on 1 August 2025, when the amendment application was sent to the tribunal, and that the later grant of the amendment meant the complaint was before the tribunal from that date.
The tribunal concluded that the unfair dismissal complaint had been presented within the statutory seven-day period for interim relief. It decided that the tribunal had power to consider interim relief and directed that a hearing be fixed without delay.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary judgment only. The tribunal decided the claimant had presented an unfair dismissal complaint on 1 August 2025 through an amendment application, so the tribunal had power to consider the interim relief application. The merits of the unfair dismissal complaint and interim relief were not determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Queensgate v Millet UKEAT/0256/20/RN
- Lunn v Aston [2018] I.C.R. D11
- Dandpat v University of Bath [2010] EWCA Civ 785
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.