Case 4107471/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Erskine v No appearance Patrick Cairney — 2026
- Case reference
- 4107471/2024
- Decision date
- 3 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sutherland
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Erskine
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningLinda Erskine presented various complaints, including disability discrimination and holiday pay. A final hearing had been listed for two days starting 3 February 2026, and the respondent attended on his own behalf.
The claimant did not attend. Notice of the hearing had been issued on 10 September 2025 to the email address used in her correspondence, and the clerk attempted to contact her by email without success. The judge noted that no telephone number was then available on the file, although it later transpired that telephone contact information had been provided on 4 June 2025.
Because the hearing required evidence from the claimant and could not proceed in her absence, the tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2024 in furtherance of the overriding objective. The judgment recorded that the claimant could apply for reconsideration within 14 days, explaining why she failed to attend and why she did not seek a postponement.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the case included a disability discrimination complaint, but the claimant did not attend the final hearing. The tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 and made no merits findings. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the case included a holiday pay complaint, but the claimant did not attend the final hearing. The tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 and made no merits findings. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.