Case 4118425/2018 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4118425/2018 Preliminary Hearing at Edinburgh on November 2018 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone) Maria Law v Respondent — 2018
- Case reference
- 4118425/2018
- Decision date
- 15 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macleod Judgment
Parties
1 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4118425/2018 Preliminary Hearing at Edinburgh on November 2018 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone) Maria Law
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a claim on 10 September 2018 complaining that Four Seasons Health Care (Scotland) Limited had unfairly dismissed her. The respondent argued in its ET3 that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the claimant did not have the minimum qualifying service. A preliminary hearing was arranged to decide that issue.
The claimant did not attend the hearing and was not represented. The tribunal noted that her solicitors had withdrawn on 1 November 2018 and that subsequent emails from the tribunal asking her to provide the requested information and confirming the hearing time received no response. The tribunal also recorded that the respondent's solicitors had emailed the claimant on 1 November asking her to consider withdrawing the claim, and that no further correspondence followed.
Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal decided it would be inappropriate to proceed in the claimant's absence and that dismissal was in the interests of justice. The tribunal said there was no basis to believe the claimant would respond to any further correspondence or attend a reconvened hearing, and that proceeding on the respondent's evidence alone would likely be a poor use of tribunal time.
The judgment therefore dismissed the claim under Rule 47 on the basis of the claimant's non-attendance. The tribunal stated that reconsideration remained open to the claimant if she could disclose a proper basis and explanation for doing so.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 at a preliminary hearing because the claimant did not attend or respond to repeated tribunal emails. The tribunal did not determine the respondent's jurisdictional argument about qualifying service. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.