Case 4100887/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Roberts Comet Food Limited (Dissolved) Ryan Bowman v Comet Food Ltd (Dissolved) and R Bowman — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100887/2022
- Decision date
- 31 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Roberts Comet Food Limited (Dissolved) Ryan Bowman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim against the 1st named respondent, Comet Food Limited (Dissolved), under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules on the ground that the claim had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not record any determination of the substantive merits of the underlying complaint.
The reasons explain that the tribunal wrote to the claimant on 6 July 2022 with information about making an application to Companies House to restore the dissolved company to the register. When no correspondence was received, the tribunal wrote again on 9 June 2023 seeking an update. A further letter dated 11 July 2023 gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 25 July 2023 or request a hearing.
No reply was received to either of those later letters. The tribunal therefore found that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason why the claim should not be struck out, and no hearing was requested. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type; it only records that the claim against the 1st named respondent, Comet Food Limited (Dissolved), was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) ET Rules 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.