Case 4100670/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Wilson v Tokheim UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100670/2015
- Decision date
- 1 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 2 November 2020, Employment Judge Robert Gall gave Mr D Wilson an opportunity to provide written reasons by 16 November 2020, or to request a hearing, on the question whether the claim should be struck out. The respondent was Tokheim UK Limited. The judgment records that the claimant did not comply with that direction.
The tribunal held that Mr Wilson failed to give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing. It therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that the claim had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). No substantive liability findings or monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not determine the underlying merits of any substantive claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.