Case 2701264/2014 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M McGuigan v British Gas Trading Limited — 2017
- Case reference
- 2701264/2014
- Decision date
- 6 April 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
- Venue
- COET Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M McGuigan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, on the ground that it had not been actively pursued in terms of rule 37(1)(d).
The Tribunal had given the claimant an opportunity on 13 March 2017 to provide written reasons by 27 March 2017, or to request a hearing, to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why such a judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing. The claim was therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The extracted judgment does not separately discuss the underlying unlawful deduction complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing identifies Working Time Regulations as a category, but the judgment itself gives only a general strike-out decision and does not separately analyse this complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.