Case 8001574/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Mathieson v Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001574/2025
- Decision date
- 18 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Strain
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Mathieson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case called for a case management Preliminary Hearing in Edinburgh by CVP on 24 September 2025 before Employment Judge A Strain. The claimant had sought postponement on 17 September 2025 so that he could obtain legal advice and representation, but that application was refused on 18 September 2025. The claimant did not appear and was not represented at the hearing.
The tribunal delayed the start of proceedings so the clerk could contact the claimant, but there was no response. Mr McDowell for the respondent submitted that the claim should be dismissed under Rule 47. Having regard to the claimant's non-attendance, the absence of any explanation for it, and the overriding objective, the tribunal dismissed the claim in terms of Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The judgment does not determine the underlying unfair dismissal or disability discrimination issues on their merits.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records only a Rule 47 dismissal at a preliminary hearing and does not set out any merits findings on the disability discrimination complaint. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records only a Rule 47 dismissal at a preliminary hearing and does not set out any merits findings on the unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective
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.