Case 4100340/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hunter v Jaydee Heating Limited (in Administration) — 2017
- Case reference
- 4100340/2016
- Decision date
- 18 April 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McFatridge
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hunter
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal in Dundee struck out Mr J Hunter's claim against Jaydee Heating Limited (in Administration) under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The reason given was that the claim had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d).
The tribunal recorded that on 10 April 2017 it gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 17 April 2017, or to request a hearing so that the tribunal could consider why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing.
As a result, the tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment does not record any merits findings or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. It does not separate findings by individual head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | This appears to correspond to the protective award claim listed in the case metadata. The judgment does not set out a separate outcome for that head and instead strikes out the claim as a whole. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. It does not separate findings by individual head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. It does not separate findings by individual head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. It does not separate findings by individual head of claim. | 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.