Case 4101237/2014 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Hollywood v Galliford Try Employment Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4101237/2014
- Decision date
- 17 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Hollywood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal 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, referring specifically to rule 37(1)(d).
The Tribunal had given the claimant an opportunity on 28 October 2020 to provide written reasons by 11 November 2020, or to request a hearing, to address why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why strike-out judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The gov.uk listing categorised the case as Breach of Contract and Working Time Regulations, but the judgment itself refers only to 'the claim' being struck out for not being actively pursued and does not distinguish individual heads of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing categorised the case as Breach of Contract and Working Time Regulations, but the judgment itself refers only to 'the claim' being struck out for not being actively pursued and does not distinguish individual heads of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- 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.