Case 4102073/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v EBS Systems Limited (In administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 4102073/2020
- Decision date
- 9 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal for Scotland struck out Miss L Hughes's claim against EBS Systems Ltd (in administration) under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The stated ground was that the claim had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment was issued by Employment Judge M Whitcombe.
On 8 June 2020, the Tribunal told the claimant that because the respondent was in administration, the administrator's consent was required for the claim to proceed. The claim was sisted to allow time to obtain that consent. The Tribunal then sought an update on 10 December 2020, confirmed again on 21 January 2021 that administrator consent was required, and sent a further reminder on 4 August 2021.
On 6 September 2021, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 20 September 2021, or to request a hearing, to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify a substantive underlying claim type. It was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) on the basis that the claim had not been actively pursued. | 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.