Case 4101818/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Apex Training and Development Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4101818/2020
- Decision date
- 2 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a telephone case management preliminary hearing on 24 August 2020, the tribunal issued orders. On 30 September 2020 the respondent said it was unable to communicate with the claimant despite several attempts, and the orders were not complied with. A reminder was issued on 21 October 2020.
On 2 November 2020 the tribunal gave the claimant until 16 November 2020 either to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing. By judgment dated 30 November 2020, the tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d).
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue the claim; the tribunal recorded non-compliance with orders, the respondent's unsuccessful attempts to contact the claimant, and no response to the opportunity to explain why strike-out should not follow. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue the claim; the tribunal recorded non-compliance with orders, the respondent's unsuccessful attempts to contact the claimant, and no response to the opportunity to explain why strike-out should not follow. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue the claim; the tribunal recorded non-compliance with orders, the respondent's unsuccessful attempts to contact the claimant, and no response to the opportunity to explain why strike-out should not follow. | 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.