Case 8001092/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 8001092/2024 Miss A Clark v Anderson Property Services (Scotland) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001092/2024
- Decision date
- 3 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Eccles Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 8001092/2024 Miss A Clark
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal for Scotland listed the case for a final hearing on 11 to 14 March 2025. The claimant did not attend. The tribunal considered whether to dismiss the claim in the claimant's absence, taking account of a fit note provided by the claimant, but decided not to dismiss at that stage.
The tribunal then asked the claimant to obtain a soul and conscience certificate from her GP confirming that she was unable to attend because of ill health and indicating when she was expected to be fit to attend a hearing. The claimant was asked to provide that information by 28 March 2025 so that further hearing dates could be arranged. She did not provide the certificate or contact the tribunal, and a reminder sent on 4 April 2025 also received no response.
On 22 April 2025 the tribunal gave the claimant a further opportunity to provide written reasons by 9 May 2025, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 for not being actively pursued. The claimant did not reply to that letter or otherwise contact the tribunal.
The tribunal found that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason why a strike-out judgment should not be made and had not requested a hearing. It therefore struck out the claim under rule 38 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. No merits decision or monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not set out the pleaded claim in detail, but the GOV.UK listing for this case identifies disability discrimination as one of the case categories. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not set out the pleaded claim in detail, but the GOV.UK listing for this case identifies unfair dismissal as one of the case categories. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 38(1)(d) Employment Tribunal 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.