Case 8001677/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Waugh v No appearance Glasgow City Council — 2026
- Case reference
- 8001677/2025
- Decision date
- 16 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sutherland Sarah
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Waugh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2024 because the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing on 11 March 2026.
The judgment records that the claimant had previously failed to attend a case management preliminary hearing, had been issued with a strike out warning, and had later been told to contact the Tribunal immediately if further technical difficulties arose. On the hearing date, the claimant did not join and did not contact the Tribunal, and attempts by the clerk to reach her by phone and email were unsuccessful.
The Tribunal noted that the claim contained only a very brief narrative, that the claimant had not provided further particulars when required, and that it was not possible to progress the hearing in her absence. It stated that dismissal under Rule 47 was in furtherance of the overriding objective, while noting that the claimant could apply for reconsideration within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant had presented various complaints including disability discrimination, but says the narrative was very brief and the specific complaints could not reasonably be inferred. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.