Case 8002546/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Number 8002546/2025 Julie Short v West Lothian Council — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002546/2025
- Decision date
- 10 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eccles Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number 8002546/2025 Julie Short
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, specifically on the ground that it had not been actively pursued under rule 38(1)(d). The judgment did not determine the merits of the underlying claim.
The Tribunal recorded that on 20 February 2026 the claimant notified it that she wished to withdraw her "appeal". The Tribunal then wrote to the claimant on 24 February 2026, 3 March 2026, and 17 March 2026 asking her to confirm whether she wished to withdraw her claim. The claimant did not respond.
On 2 April 2026 the Tribunal gave the claimant until 9 April 2026 to provide written reasons or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not respond, give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made, or request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No remedy was awarded or considered in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The GOV.UK listing category identifies the case as unfair dismissal. The judgment itself records only that the claim was struck out under rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 38(1)(d) 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.