Case 8000328/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Nesbitt v (1) Glasgow Clyde College — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000328/2025
- Decision date
- 10 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Nesbitt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing in Glasgow on 10 November 2025, Employment Judge M Whitcombe struck out both linked claims in case numbers 8000328/2025 and 8000964/2025. The tribunal held, under rule 38(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, that the manner in which the claims had been conducted by the claimant had been unreasonable and that this made a fair hearing impossible. The judgment says that striking the claims out was the only proportionate sanction in the circumstances.
Oral reasons were given in the presence of the parties or their representatives. The claimant requested written reasons, and the tribunal recorded that those would be provided as soon as practicable. The supplied written record does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Linked case number 8000328/2025. The supplied judgment text does not identify the substantive cause of action; it states only that the claim was struck out under rule 38(1)(b). | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Linked case number 8000964/2025. The supplied judgment text does not identify the substantive cause of action; it states only that the claim was struck out under rule 38(1)(b). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 38(1)(b) 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.