Case 4101582/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Quinn v JHP Transport (Lanark) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4101582/2022
- Decision date
- 4 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Quinn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 29 August 2022 the Tribunal wrote to Mr W Quinn and allowed 7 days for comments on the Tribunal's intention to dismiss the claim after an ACAS COT3 agreement had been signed by the parties. No reply was received. On 8 September 2022 the Tribunal gave him an opportunity to provide written reasons by 22 September 2022, or to request a hearing, as to why the claim should not be struck out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. No reply was received to that letter either.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made and had not requested a hearing. It therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success within rule 37(1)(a). The judgment was dated 30 September 2022 and entered in the register on 4 October 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment refers only to 'the claim' and does not identify separate substantive heads of claim. It was struck out under rule 37(1)(a) after the claimant did not respond to the Tribunal's letters about a possible ACAS COT3 agreement or provide reasons not to strike out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37
- rule 37(1)(a)
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.