Case 8001743/2025 · Employment Tribunal
M Sheridan v Advice Direct Scotland Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 8001743/2025
- Decision date
- 24 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Sheridan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing held by video in Glasgow on 17 July 2026, the tribunal dismissed M Sheridan's unfair dismissal complaint against Advice Direct Scotland Limited following her withdrawal of that complaint. The dismissal was made under rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The tribunal also dismissed the Equality Act 2010 complaints because they were commenced outside the time limit defined by section 123(1), leaving it without jurisdiction to hear them. The judgment does not identify the individual Equality Act complaints or record a monetary award. Oral summary reasons were given at the hearing, and written summary reasons were to follow after the claimant maintained her request.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal formally dismissed this complaint upon withdrawal by the claimant under rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The Equality Act 2010 complaints were dismissed as out of time under section 123(1), leaving the tribunal without jurisdiction. They are grouped here because the judgment does not identify their distinct claim types or protected characteristics. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010
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.