Case 4100947/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Thomson v Weir & McQuiston (Scotland) Limited (In Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100947/2022
- Decision date
- 21 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Thomson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge M Whitcombe struck out the claims of Mr C Thomson and the other claimants in the attached multiple schedule against Weir & McQuiston (Scotland) Limited (in administration). The judgment records that the claims were struck out under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure on the ground that they had not been actively pursued.
The Tribunal wrote to the claimants on 18 and 19 April 2023 asking them to confirm by 26 or 27 April 2023 whether they still intended to pursue their claims after their representative withdrew. No reply was received. The Tribunal wrote again on 26 May 2023 requiring a reply by 2 June 2023, and again no reply was received.
On 15 June 2023 the Tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to provide written reasons by 30 June 2023, or to request a hearing, to address why the claims should not be struck out. The claimants did not give an acceptable reason why strike-out judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claims were struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because they had not been actively pursued. It does not separately analyse this listed claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claims were struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because they had not been actively pursued. It does not separately analyse this listed claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claims were struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because they had not been actively pursued. It does not separately analyse this listed claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the claims were struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because they had not been actively pursued. It does not separately analyse this listed claim type. | 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.