Case 4101741/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Richardson v Bilfinger UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4101741/2023
- Decision date
- 2 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Richardson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 20 March 2023 the tribunal wrote to Mr Richardson asking him to confirm within 14 days the legal basis of the claims, because the ET1 referred to bullying and harassment and to detriment and/or dismissal for exercising rights under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. No response was received.
On 6 April 2023 the tribunal gave Mr Richardson a further opportunity to provide written reasons by 20 April 2023, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. No response was received.
The tribunal found that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made, or to request a hearing, and therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The ET1 was said to indicate claims of bullying and harassment and detriment and/or dismissal under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, but the claimant did not respond to the tribunal's requests to confirm the legal basis or to make representations before strike-out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.