Case 4100966/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Weir & McQuiston (Scotland) Limited (In Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100966/2022
- Decision date
- 18 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the outstanding claims were for wages, holiday pay and breach of contract. On 10 January 2023 it asked the claimant to provide a schedule of loss for those claims by 24 January 2023, but no reply was received. On 3 February 2023 it reminded the claimant to provide the outstanding information by 10 February 2023, and again no reply was received.
On 22 February 2023 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 8 March 2023, or to request a hearing, to consider why the claim should not be struck out. No reply was received. The Tribunal found that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made or to request a hearing, and struck out the claim under rule 37 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment described this as an outstanding claim for wages and struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment described this as an outstanding claim for holiday pay and struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment described this as an outstanding claim for breach of contract and struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | 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.