Case 4101426/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Ferguson v Rujia Marketing Consultants Ltd (In Compulsory Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 4101426/2023
- Decision date
- 28 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Ferguson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 30 March 2023, the tribunal wrote to Miss H Ferguson to say that Rujia Marketing Consultants Ltd was in compulsory liquidation and that she would need the consent of the court dealing with the liquidation proceedings if the claim was to continue. The tribunal asked for an update within six months, but no reply was received. It wrote again on 4 December 2023 asking for an update by 18 December 2023, and on 21 December 2023 it sent a copy of a letter from the Insolvency Service asking the claimant to confirm how she wished to proceed by 5 January 2024. No reply was received to either letter.
On 14 February 2024 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 28 February 2024, or to request a hearing, to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not provide acceptable reasons and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying pleaded causes of action; it only records that 'the claim' was struck out under rule 37 for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals Rules 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.