Case 4100955/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Docherty v Weir & McQuiston (Scotland) Limited (In Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100955/2022
- Decision date
- 11 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Docherty
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Mr D Docherty's claim against Weir & McQuiston (Scotland) Limited (In Administration) under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure on the ground that the claim had not been actively pursued, specifically rule 37(1)(d).
The remaining complaints identified in the judgment concerned arrears of pay, notice pay and unpaid holiday pay. The Tribunal recorded that it wrote to the claimant on 15 June 2023 asking him to confirm by 6 July 2023 whether those remaining complaints were withdrawn, and that no reply was received. It wrote again on 29 June 2023 reminding him to respond, again without receiving a reply.
On 12 July 2023, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 19 July 2023 or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out. The Tribunal recorded that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason why such a judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing. No remedy or monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to remaining complaints in relation to arrears of pay, which were struck out under rule 37 because the claim had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to remaining complaints in relation to notice pay. It does not set out further legal classification, but the listing category was breach of contract. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to remaining complaints in relation to unpaid holiday pay, which were struck out under rule 37 because the claim had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- 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.