Case 4101189/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Cope v Turning Point Scotland — 2017
- Case reference
- 4101189/2015
- Decision date
- 27 September 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Cope
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing the withdrawal from acting of the claimant’s solicitor, the tribunal wrote to Mr D Cope seeking his intentions for the future conduct of the proceedings. No response was received, and a reminder was sent. The tribunal then gave him a further opportunity on 31 August 2017 to provide written reasons by 14 September 2017 or to request a hearing about why the claim should not be struck out.
Mr Cope did not give an acceptable reason why the claim should not be struck out and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). No substantive liability or remedy findings were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not record any substantive merits determination. The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.