Case 4101943/2015 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4101943/2015 Mr D Norton v Bell & Bain Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4101943/2015
- Decision date
- 10 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4101943/2015 Mr D Norton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn April 2024 the tribunal was told that the claimant’s representative had withdrawn from acting. The tribunal wrote to Mr D Norton on 16 April 2024 asking whether he wished to proceed with the claim and, if so, whether he intended to instruct a new representative, but the letter was returned marked "Not at this address".
The tribunal then contacted both the previous representative and the respondent’s representative to find a current address for the claimant. The previous representative confirmed that Mr Norton had died and that they had withdrawn because they had been unable to make contact with a legal heir. The respondent’s representative also confirmed that he had died some time ago and said they understood he had a brother, but they had not had any contact with him.
In the absence of contact with an executor or representative of the claimant, Employment Judge L Wiseman Date struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records no substantive findings on the merits and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not separately discuss this head; the formal order strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not separately discuss this head; the formal order strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d)
- not actively pursued
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.