Case 4100534/2013 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Baxter v Bear Scotland Limited — 2017
- Case reference
- 4100534/2013
- Decision date
- 12 September 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Baxter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing the withdrawal of the claimant’s solicitor, the tribunal wrote to Mr D Baxter seeking his intentions about the future conduct of the proceedings. No response was received, and a reminder was sent, but still nothing was heard from the claimant.
On 3 August 2017 the tribunal gave Mr Baxter an opportunity to provide written reasons by 17 August 2017 or to request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. He did not provide an acceptable reason or request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claims under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, specifically on the ground that they had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). No merits finding or remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The tribunal struck out the claims under rule 37(1)(d) on the basis that they had not been actively pursued. The extracted text does not restate the underlying substantive claim type, but the case listing identifies Working Time Regulations. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.