Case 4100287/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Boyle Evans Dakota Services Ltd (Glasgow) v Represented by: In Person — 2018
- Case reference
- 4100287/2018
- Decision date
- 23 May 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Boyle Evans Dakota Services Ltd (Glasgow)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a claim on 15 January 2018 alleging unfair dismissal. By letter dated 15 February 2018, Employment Judge Gall required the claimant to provide, within 21 days, the basis on which the unfair dismissal claim could proceed despite the claimant having less than two years' service.
On 28 March 2018, Employment Judge Robison directed that a response should be received by 4 April 2018. No response was forthcoming. On 17 April 2018 the Tribunal gave the claimant until 24 April 2018 to provide written reasons or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but the claimant did not give an acceptable reason or request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 for non-compliance and because it had not been actively pursued. No substantive finding on unfair dismissal was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim under rule 37 on the grounds of non-compliance with tribunal orders and because the claim had not been actively pursued. No merits determination was made. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(1)(c)
- 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.