Ms Rachel Stirling v ScotRail Trains Limited — 2025

Ms Rachel Stirling lodged her ET1 on 25 May 2025 alleging unfair dismissal and whistleblowing. On 1 July 2025 she emailed the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service asking for a form to withdraw the claim; that email was forwarded to HMCTS. On 8 July 2025 the tribunal asked her to confirm that she wished to withdraw and explained that written confirmation would be sufficient. She replied the same day confirming that she wished to withdraw the claim after receiving legal advice that it was not a "winning case". A judgment dismissing the claim under Rule 51 was then issued on 11 July 2025.

On 21 July 2025 the claimant emailed that she had 14 days to "reinstate" the claim because new evidence had come to light. The tribunal treated that email as an application for the Rule 51 decision to be considered afresh under Rule 7(2), and the respondent opposed it. The tribunal held that a request to consider a decision afresh is a procedural safeguard relating to the legal officer's exercise of power, not a general right to revive a claim, and that it should proceed on the information available to the legal officer when the original decision was made. It also said that if new evidence was relied on, the proper route would be reconsideration under Rule 68.

Applying that approach, the tribunal found that the withdrawal was unequivocal. The claimant had not reserved any right to pursue the claim elsewhere, had not explained what the alleged new evidence was, why it mattered, or why it had not been available earlier, and had provided nothing showing that the Ladd v Marshall criteria were met or that setting aside the Rule 51 judgment would be in the interests of justice. It said that even if it were considering reconsideration, it would refuse it. The tribunal also held that Rule 50 means an unequivocally withdrawn claim is at an end, citing Khan v Heywood and Middleton Primary Care Trust, so there was no power to reinstate the claim.