Case 4101056/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4101056/2022 Mr P Kingham v Peter Angus — 2022
- Case reference
- 4101056/2022
- Decision date
- 21 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hosie Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4101056/2022 Mr P Kingham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 21 April 2022 Employment Judge Hosie dismissed the claim under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The reasons recorded were that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious within Rule 37(1)(b), and that the claim had not been actively pursued within Rule 37(1)(d).
The tribunal had given the claimant an opportunity on 19 April 2022 to provide written reasons by 12 pm on 21 April 2022 explaining why the claim should not be dismissed. The judgment records that the claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason, and the tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No monetary award was made and no substantive merits finding is recorded in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive cause of action in the extracted text. The claim was struck out under Rule 37 because the proceedings were conducted in a scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious manner and because the claim had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(b)
- Rule 37(1)(d)
- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.