Case 4101549/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Simpson v Servisair (UK) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4101549/2015
- Decision date
- 8 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Simpson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 25 January 2021, Employment Judge Robert Gall gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 8 February 2021, or to request a hearing, to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The judgment records that the claimant did not do so.
The tribunal found that the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason why a strike out should not be made and failed to request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, on the ground that it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d).
The judgment does not determine the underlying merits of the case, and it records no remedy or monetary award. The decision was dated 25 February 2021 and sent to the parties on 8 March 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not restate the substantive claim type; it records only that 'the claim' was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 ET Rules 2013
- rule 37(1)(d) ET 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.