Case 8002179/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Donaldson v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 8002179/2024
- Decision date
- 24 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr S Donaldson
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an undefended claim because the respondent had not filed a response by the applicable deadline. The judgment records that the respondent made a very late application to postpone the hearing, but it still had not filed a response or sought an extension of time to do so.
The claimant did not attend the hearing and had not applied for a postponement or given any explanation for his absence. The tribunal noted that the notices and correspondence had been correctly addressed, that the claimant had not taken part in the mandatory test of his equipment and connection, and that he had not complied with directions for preparation, including by failing to file documentary evidence or a schedule of loss.
After the scheduled start time, the hearing clerk telephoned the claimant using the details on file, but the call was not answered. In those circumstances, the Employment Judge decided it was consistent with the overriding objective to exercise the discretionary power under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and dismissed the claim in its entirety.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Dismissed in its entirety under rule 47; the judgment does not address the merits of the age discrimination claim. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed in its entirety under rule 47; the judgment does not address the merits of the whistleblowing claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed in its entirety under rule 47; the judgment does not address the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed in its entirety under rule 47; the judgment does not address the merits of the unlawful deduction from wages claim. | 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.