Case 4101250/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 4101250/2025 Mr. B Bingham v Represented by: R Bingham Wild Hearth Bakery — 2025
- Case reference
- 4101250/2025
- Decision date
- 26 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kemp Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 4101250/2025 Mr. B Bingham
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. The reasons recorded that the claimant had not replied to correspondence from the Tribunal.
On 30 October 2025 the Tribunal wrote to the claimant, referred to the lack of response, warned that strike out was being considered, and gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 13 November 2025 or to request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not respond or provide an acceptable reason, and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The extracted judgment does not list the pleaded heads of claim, but the case listing identifies age discrimination as one of the claims. The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | The extracted judgment does not list the pleaded heads of claim, but the case listing identifies breach of contract as one of the claims. The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment does not list the pleaded heads of claim, but the case listing identifies unfair dismissal as one of the claims. The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted judgment does not list the pleaded heads of claim, but the case listing identifies unlawful deduction from wages as one of the claims. The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.