Case 4101837/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Telfer v Rujia Marketing Consultants Ltd (In Compulsory Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 4101837/2023
- Decision date
- 28 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Telfer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Miss J Telfer's claim against Rujia Marketing Consultants Ltd (In Liquidation) under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, on the ground that the claim had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). The judgment does not determine the substantive merits of the underlying claim.
The reasons record that on 30 March 2023 the tribunal informed the claimant that the respondent company was in compulsory liquidation and that she would require the consent of the court dealing with the liquidation proceedings if the claim was to continue. The claimant was asked to provide an update within six months, but no reply was received.
The tribunal wrote again on 4 December 2023 seeking an update by 18 December 2023, and again received no reply. On 14 February 2024 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity either to provide written reasons by 28 February 2024 or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out.
The tribunal found that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason why a strike-out judgment should not be made and had not requested a hearing. It therefore struck out the claim. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not restate the substantive cause of action; claim type classified as unlawful deduction from wages based on the gov.uk listing category and Layer 1 hint, while the tribunal judgment itself records only that 'the claim' was struck out for want of active pursuit. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- 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.