Case 4100896/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Gillespie and MacLean Electrical Services Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100896/2020
- Decision date
- 23 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment striking out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. At a preliminary hearing on 25 June 2020, the claimant was ordered to provide additional information to the respondent's representative by 16 July 2020.
The claimant did not comply with that order. The tribunal then sent reminder letters dated 29 July 2020 and 25 August 2020, asking for a response by 11 August 2020 and then by 8 September 2020, but no reply was received.
On 5 October 2020 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 19 October 2020, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim for non-compliance with the tribunal's order dated 25 June 2020, under rule 37(1)(c). No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment does not specify the underlying substantive complaint beyond referring to 'the claim'; the disability discrimination classification is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(1)(c)
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.