Case 8003216/2025 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8003216/2025 & 8000024/2026 Held in Edinburgh via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on May 2026 Employment Judge M A Macleod Ms S Woodham v Epicureanism Ltd and 3 others — 2026
- Case reference
- 8003216/2025
- Decision date
- 14 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
5 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8003216/2025 & 8000024/2026 Held in Edinburgh via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on May 2026 Employment Judge M A Macleod Ms S Woodham
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had presented two Employment Tribunal claims, case numbers 8003216/2025 and 8000024/2026, which had been combined. The judgment arose from a Preliminary Hearing held by Cloud Video Platform on 14 May 2026.
The second respondent, The Edinburgh Beer Factory Ltd, applied under Rule 35 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 to be removed from the proceedings. Its solicitor submitted that the second respondent had been the transferor in a TUPE transfer and was no longer liable for actions relating to the claimant. The claimant consented to the application.
The tribunal referred to Rule 35(2), which permits removal of a party that appears to have been wrongly included. The tribunal removed The Edinburgh Beer Factory Ltd from the proceedings by consent. The judgment did not determine the substantive claims or record any monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment decided only the second respondent's Rule 35 application to be removed from the proceedings; it did not determine the substantive claim categories listed for the combined cases. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 35(2) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.