Case 4101428/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Allen v Randex Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4101428/2023
- Decision date
- 9 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Allen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final hearing on 20 April 2023, the parties agreed that the respondent would pay the claimant £150 in settlement of the claim. The claimant was told to inform the tribunal as soon as payment was received, and after the hearing the respondent told the tribunal that payment had been made.
On 9 May 2023 the tribunal asked the claimant to confirm whether he had received the payment and whether he wished to withdraw the claim. No reply was received. On 22 May 2023 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 6 June 2023, or to request a hearing, if he wished to explain why the claim should not be struck out.
The claimant did not give an acceptable reason 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 under rule 37(1)(d). The judgment was dated 8 June 2023 and entered in the register on 9 June 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not restate the substantive claim type; it is classified from the gov.uk listing as unlawful deduction from wages. 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
- not actively pursued
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.