Case 8001813/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A. Wood v Fife Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001813/2025
- Decision date
- 17 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A. Wood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 10 December 2025, the claimant withdrew the claims contained in paragraph 8.2 of his ET1. The tribunal therefore dismissed those claims following withdrawal.
The withdrawn paragraph alleged that the claimant had been subjected to a disciplinary process based on statements he disputed, that the process ended with no formal action but a recorded counselling requirement, and that this was said to breach the respondent's disciplinary policy and the ACAS Code of Practice. It also referred to occupational health confirmation of a psychological condition said to qualify as a disability under the Equality Act 2010, alleged stress and mental health deterioration, delayed subject access response, use of a Disclosure Scotland document, and unanswered grievances.
No remedy was awarded in the judgment, and no substantive findings on liability were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The quoted withdrawn ET1 paragraph expressly included disability discrimination and the judgment dismissed the claims in that paragraph following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Other | The withdrawn paragraph also referred to matters including disciplinary procedure, Subject Access Request delay, use of a Disclosure Scotland document, grievance handling, psychological harm, reputational damage and breach of procedure, but the precise legal classification of any non-discrimination claim is unclear from the judgment text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.