Case 4100043/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100043/2019 Miss A O’Donnell v West Coast Aggregates t/a MHL Utilities — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100043/2019
- Decision date
- 6 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100043/2019 Miss A O’Donnell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss A O’Donnell, brought proceedings against West Coast Aggregates t/a MHL Utilities. The judgment records that the claim was sisted on 11 April 2019 while the claimant sought consent of the court to proceed. The tribunal noted that there was then no contact from the claimant about any progress in obtaining that consent, despite reminders sent on 5 November 2019, 7 January 2020 and 28 January 2020.
On 1 February 2020, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 25 February 2020 or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. No acceptable reason was provided and no hearing was requested. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). No remedy or substantive merits findings were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out under rule 37 as not actively pursued; no merits determination was made. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Struck out under rule 37 as not actively pursued; no merits determination was made. | 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.