Case 8000554/2025 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Employment Judge N M Hosie Case Number: 8000554/2025 Miss E Binnersley v Scottish Autism — 2026
- Case reference
- 8000554/2025
- Decision date
- 7 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Employment Judge N M Hosie Case Number: 8000554/2025 Miss E Binnersley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge N M Hosie struck out Miss E Binnersley's claim against Scottish Autism under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The judgment states that the strike-out was made on two grounds: non-compliance with the Procedure Rules and a Tribunal order under rule 38(1)(c), and that the claim had not been actively pursued under rule 38(1)(d).
The reasons record that on 3 November 2025 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 10 November 2025 or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type or types. It records that the claim was struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for non-compliance with the Procedure Rules and a Tribunal order under rule 38(1)(c), and because the claim had not been actively pursued under rule 38(1)(d). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 38(1)(c)
- rule 38(1)(d)
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.