Case 4101608/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Campbell-Graham v Anderson Kilts — 2022
- Case reference
- 4101608/2022
- Decision date
- 22 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Campbell-Graham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 27 April 2022 the Tribunal wrote to Mr T Campbell-Graham asking him to say whether he accepted that he had less than the necessary two years' qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and to respond to the respondent's assertion that sums claimed by him were not due. No reply was received.
The Tribunal wrote again on 17 May 2022 to remind him to reply, but there was still no response. On 31 May 2022 it gave him an opportunity to provide written reasons by 15 June 2022, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out. No reply or request for a hearing was received.
Employment Judge David Hoey held that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made and had failed to actively pursue the case. The claim was therefore struck out under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, on the ground in rule 37(1)(d). No merits findings or monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | On 27 April 2022 the Tribunal asked the claimant to say whether he accepted he had less than the necessary two years' qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. No reply was received, and the claim was later struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | On 27 April 2022 the Tribunal also asked the claimant to respond to the respondent's assertion that sums claimed were not due. No reply was received, and the claim was later struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d)
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.