Case 8002518/2025 · Employment Tribunal

Number: 8002518/2025 Scott Perrie v Luxury Leisure — 2026

Case reference: 8002518/2025
Decision date: 5 May 2026
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge P O’Donnell Case

Indexed: 29 July 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Number: 8002518/2025 Scott Perrie

Respondent

Luxury Leisure

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal struck out Scott Perrie's claim under rules 38(1)(c) and 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. It found that he had not complied with an order of the Tribunal and had not actively pursued the claim. The judgment does not identify the substantive complaints and records no determination of their merits or monetary remedy.

At a case management hearing on 28 January 2026, the claimant was ordered to provide information concerning his disability and the complaints he sought to pursue. After Luxury Leisure applied for strike-out on 18 March 2026, the Tribunal requested the claimant's comments by letter dated 27 March 2026, but received no reply. The Tribunal then warned him on 13 April 2026 that strike-out was under consideration and allowed until 27 April 2026 to object or request a hearing. No reply was received, and the claim was struck out for non-compliance and failure to pursue it actively.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole but does not identify the substantive complaints. It records only that the claimant had been ordered to provide information concerning his disability and the complaints he sought to pursue.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 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.