Case 4101070/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Richard Fraser v Ashgrove Home Improvements Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4101070/2022
- Decision date
- 29 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
- Venue
- chambers in Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Richard Fraser
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Richard Fraser brought an ET1 on 15 February 2022 complaining of unfair dismissal, seeking a redundancy payment, and saying he was owed other payments. An ET3 was presented and the case proceeded to a case management preliminary hearing on 3 May 2022, where he clarified that he was only seeking compensation for unfair dismissal. The respondents said the dismissal was fair for gross misconduct.
The tribunal issued standard orders for documents and for details of financial loss within 14 days. The claimant did not comply, and the respondents applied for strike out on 23 May 2022. That application was refused at first, and the claimant was given a further 14 days to comply. He again failed to do so, and the respondents renewed their request for strike out on 14 June 2022.
On 16 June 2022 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons or request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out for failure to comply with the tribunal's directions and orders. He was given until 30 June 2022, and then a further reminder and extension until 25 July 2022. He did not reply or request a hearing.
The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d) and, separately, because the claimant had not complied with tribunal orders under rule 37(1)(c). No merits determination was made on unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, or any other payment claim, and the final hearing listed for 24 and 25 August 2022 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | At the case management hearing on 3 May 2022, the claimant clarified that he was only seeking compensation for unfair dismissal. The tribunal did not determine the merits and later struck out the claim under rule 37. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The ET1 stated that the claimant sought a redundancy payment, but the judgment makes no merits finding on that issue. The tribunal struck out the claim as a whole for non-pursuit and non-compliance with orders. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The ET1 also said the claimant claimed other payments owed, but the judgment does not identify the legal basis for those sums. The tribunal struck out the claim as a whole without deciding the underlying entitlement. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d)
- 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.