Case 4100162/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Arthur v CDM Energy Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4100162/2020
- Decision date
- 12 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Arthur
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge M Whitcombe struck out Mr D Arthur's claim against CDM Energy Limited under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The tribunal held that the first respondent had been dissolved and could not be sued, so the claim had no reasonable prospect of success within rule 37(1)(a).
On 9 February 2021 the tribunal gave the claimant and the second respondent an opportunity to provide written reasons by 16 February 2021 or to request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason or request a hearing. The second respondent replied that it had no objection to the claim against the first respondent being struck out, and the tribunal therefore made the strike-out order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim type in the extracted text. The claim against the first respondent was struck out because the respondent had been dissolved and could not be sued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
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.