Cameron House Resort (Loch Lomond) Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant failed to attend a preliminary hearing scheduled for 10:00 on 15 April 2026 to determine jurisdictional time limit issues. Although the claimant submitted last-minute applications requesting a delayed start and remote hearing participation due to health concerns, the tribunal refused these applications due to their timing, lack of supporting medical evidence, and potential prejudice to the respondent. When the claimant failed to attend by 12:00 as subsequently indicated, the tribunal dismissed the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.

The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to attend the hearing at the notified start time of 10:00 and subsequently failed to appear by 12:00 despite being informed that her applications for a delayed start and remote participation had been refused. The tribunal found that the claimant had effectively taken control of the proceedings by not travelling to the hearing venue, making it impossible to proceed with the full day required for a fair hearing, and that further adjournment would cause undue delay and tripled costs for the respondent.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Claimant's failure to attend scheduled hearing
• •Applications for delayed start time and conversion to video hearing
• •Jurisdictional time limit issues
• •Procedural compliance and tribunal management

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Hearing held in Glasgow on 15 April 2026 Employment Judge M Whitcombe Mrs J Russell Claimant Did not attend Cameron House Resort (Loch Lomond) Limited Respondent Represented by: Mr J Barratt (Solicitor) JUDGMENT The claim is dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because of the claimant’s failure to attend the hearing. Oral reasons were given in the presence of the respondent’s representative. REASONS Background 1. This third preliminary hearing had been intended to be the second attempt to decide jurisdictional time limit issues in this claim, which was commenced 13 months ago. The last hearing was adjourned in circumstances set out in my case management order of 30 March 2026. When planning for this hearing the Tribunal made all the adjustments for the claimant’s disability set out in that order. No other adjustments had been requested or agreed. It had been agreed by the claimant, the respondent’s representative and by me that a full day would be necessary for a fair hearing at a pace which properly allowed Page 2 for the claimant’s neurodiversity. A 1000 start time was therefore necessary to achieve that. Failure to attend and the claimant’s applications 2. The claimant failed to attend at the notified start time of 1000. Several very late emails from the claimant were drawn to my attention by the Tribunal administration. They largely explained why the claimant was not present, but they also suggested that the claimant had taken matters into her own hands rather than complying with the notice of hearing pending a decision on her applications. a. In an email timed at 16:49 on 14 April 2026 (the day before the hearing) the claimant suggested that she would be relying on additional written medical evidence, but that it would only be available on the morning of the hearing. The claimant also wished to play an audio rec…