Case 4100008/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Adam v Harbro Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4100008/2015
- Decision date
- 9 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Adam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting in Glasgow before Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman, struck out Mr K Adam's claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment records that the claim had been listed for consideration under the Working Time Regulations, but the extracted text does not set out the substantive pleaded complaint.
On 31 July 2019 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 7 August 2019, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the Tribunal decided to strike out the claim. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not identify the underlying pleaded claim beyond referring to it as 'the claim'. The case listing was categorised as Working Time Regulations, which is the basis used for classification here. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.