Case 8002561/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Stuart Rayner v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002561/2025
- Decision date
- 24 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Stuart Rayner
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was listed as a two-hour preliminary hearing for case management. The claimant did not attend, gave no explanation, did not respond to telephone and email contact from the clerk, and had not applied for a postponement.
The Tribunal recorded that the claimant had not completed his case management agenda, which made it impossible to progress the case in his absence because further detail was needed about the claim and the disability discrimination complaints. The Tribunal also noted that the claimant appeared to lack sufficient continuous service for the unfair dismissal complaint, and dismissed the claim under rule 47.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment dismissed the claim under rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing. The judgment refers to disability discrimination allegations but says further detail of the types alleged and essential building blocks was needed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismissed the claim under rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing. It also noted that the claimant appeared to lack sufficient continuous service to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.