Case 8001100/2025 · Employment Tribunal

Claimant v Portsonachan Wilderness Lodges Ltd — 2025

Case reference: 8001100/2025
Decision date: 17 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge Wiseman Case

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Respondent

Portsonachan Wilderness Lodges Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

On 6 May 2025, Miss S Smith presented a claim alleging unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, and that the respondent owed various sums of money. A preliminary hearing for case management took place on 4 July 2025, but the claimant did not attend. After that hearing, Employment Judge Case issued a note and directed the claimant to answer a number of questions about the claim.

The claimant sent an email on 4 August 2025, but it was two weeks late and did not answer the questions; it instead provided further narrative. The judge then directed her again, by email of 6 August 2025, to respond to each question. On 18 August 2025 the claimant said she was waiting for an appointment with her legal representative, and the time for response was extended to 1 September 2025.

The claimant did not reply by 1 September 2025. A reminder was sent on 4 September 2025, followed by a strike-out warning letter on 15 September 2025. She did not respond to either communication and made no further contact with the tribunal. The judgment therefore struck out the claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for failure to actively pursue the case, with the header also recording non-compliance with tribunal procedure or an order as a strike-out ground. No merits findings or remedy were made.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Alleged in the claim form; the tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 before any merits determination.	Struck out	—	—
Sex discrimination	The claim form alleged discrimination because of sex; the tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 before any merits determination.	Struck out	Sex	—
Other	The claimant also said she was owed various sums of money, but the judgment does not particularise those sums or identify the underlying cause of action.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.