Case 2413821/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Scanlon v SIG Trading Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2413821/2018
- Decision date
- 26 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Scanlon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment is a short procedural decision in Mr A Scanlon v SIG Trading Limited. The Employment Tribunal noted that, by letter dated 8 June 2019, it had given the respondent an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the response should not be struck out because the proceedings had been conducted in a scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious manner.
The respondent did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the Tribunal struck out the response. The judgment does not determine the underlying merits of the claimant's employment claims, and it records no award of compensation or other remedy. It also states that the respondent remains entitled to notice of future hearings and decisions, but may participate only to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not determine any substantive employment claim on the merits. It records that the response was struck out after the respondent failed to make sufficient representations or request a hearing in answer to the Tribunal's strike-out warning letter dated 8 June 2019. | Struck out | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 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.