Case 4100468/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Stubbs v Palmer and Harvey McLane Ltd in Administration — 2019
- Case reference
- 4100468/2018
- Decision date
- 16 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Simon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Stubbs
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Stubbs presented his claim on 22 January 2018, saying he had been unfairly dismissed and was owed notice pay. He also referred to his former employer being in liquidation or administration and identified Price Waterhouse Coopers as the administrators. After enquiry from the tribunal, he clarified that he was claiming '90 days notice only' at the rate of £340 per week, and it was initially unclear whether he was also seeking a protective award.
Price Waterhouse Coopers, as administrators, consented to claims proceeding only so far as they were claims for a protective award. They explained by letter dated 25 April 2018 that employees had been sent information about how to make a claim to the Insolvency Service for, among other matters, failure to pay notice pay. The tribunal then wrote to the claimant on 10 September 2018, 21 September 2018, 11 October 2018, 4 April 2019, and 23 April 2019 asking him to clarify whether he had the necessary consent and whether he intended to pursue the claim.
The claimant did not respond to any of those letters. The tribunal had previously sisted the proceedings until 31 December 2018 and directed him to state his intentions by that date, but there was still no response. On 16 May 2019 Employment Judge Shona Simon struck the claim out under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment also noted that the claimant could apply for reconsideration under rules 70 and 71 within 14 days of the judgment being sent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim form included unfair dismissal; the tribunal did not determine the merits and struck the claim out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant said he was owed notice pay and later clarified that he was claiming '90 days notice only' at £340 per week; the tribunal did not determine the merits and struck the claim out under rule 37(1)(d). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d)
- rules 70 and 71
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.