Miss K Grout v Infinityblu Healthcare Ltd (Eyemouth Dental Practice): 8000351/2026

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)

Case No 8000351/2026

Venue Edinburgh by CVP

Hearing 10 June 2026

Between

Miss K GroutClaimant

Infinityblu Healthcare LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Wedderburn

Date 12 June 2026

JUDGMENT

The Judgment of the Tribunal is that the claim is dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.

REASONS

[1]A preliminary hearing to consider time bar in claims for automatic unfair dismissal (section 103A) and detriment (section 47B) under the Employment Rights Act 1996 was scheduled to take place on 10 June 2026 at 10am by Cloud Video Platform (CVP).

[2]A notice of hearing was sent to the parties on 24 April 2026.

[3]The claimant was representing herself. The respondent was represented by Mr Muirhead of Citation Limited.

[4]On 28 May 2026, the respondent applied for strike out of the claims on the grounds:(i) of non-compliance with an Order of the Tribunal in terms of rule 38(1)(c) of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (“the ET Rules”).

(ii) that the claim has not been actively pursued in terms of rule 38(1)(d) of the ET Rules.

[5]The application was copied to the claimant in accordance with rule 90 of the ET Rules.

[6]On 2 June 2026, the claimant was directed by the tribunal that if she disagreed with the application, she should set out the reasons for disagreeing in writing by 9 June 2026 or tell the tribunal by then that she wanted the tribunal to fix a hearing for her to put forward her reasons in person.

[7]No response to the directions was received by the tribunal.

[8]The claimant failed to attend the preliminary hearing on 10 June 2026. Several attempts to make contact with the claimant by telephone were unsuccessful.

[9]At the outset of the hearing, the respondent made an application to have the case dismissed due to the non-attendance of the claimant under Rule 47 of the ET Rules.

[10]Having considered the information available to it, the lack of contact from, or attendance of the claimant and the practicable steps made to contact her by the tribunal on the morning of 10 June 2026, the claim was dismissed under Rule 47 of the ET Rules.

[11]It was not necessary for the tribunal to consider the strike out application under rule 38 of the ET Rules and it did not do so.

[12]The purpose of the hearing was to consider whether it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to raise her claims within the three-month time limit and if not, whether she had raised them in a further reasonable period. This required evidence from the claimant. In the absence of the claimant, the hearing could not proceed. In considering the overriding objective of the ET Rules as well as Rule 47, it was appropriate to dismiss the claim due to the claimant’s non-attendance.

[13]It is open to the claimant to seek a reconsideration of this dismissal judgment if she believes it is in the interests of justice to do so. If the claimant wishes to make this application, she should write to the Tribunal to set out why a reconsideration is necessary within 14 days of the date of this judgment. One of the possible outcomes of a reconsideration application is the revocation of, or overturning of, this dismissal judgment which would allow the case to proceed and for a new hearing on time bar to be scheduled.