Case 2301687/2017 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 2301687/2017 Mrs A Vilumovs v XPO Logistics — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301687/2017
- Decision date
- 13 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 2301687/2017 Mrs A Vilumovs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued, in terms of rule 37(1)(d).
The tribunal recorded that on 26 April 2022 the claimant was given until 10 May 2022 to provide written reasons, or to request a hearing, to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why strike out should not occur and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing categorised the case as unlawful deduction from wages and working time, but the judgment itself only states that the claim was struck out and does not describe the pleaded claims separately. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing categorised the case as unlawful deduction from wages and working time, but the judgment itself only states that the claim was struck out and does not describe the pleaded claims separately. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 37(1)(d)
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.