Case 4102078/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Shepherd v Timber Buildings UK — 2019
- Case reference
- 4102078/2019
- Decision date
- 18 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S. MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Shepherd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge S. MacLean struck out Mr D Shepherd's claim against Timber Buildings UK under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The reason given was that the claim had not been actively pursued in terms of rule 37(1)(d).
The tribunal recorded that on 10 May 2019 it wrote to the claimant asking for additional information about the claim, but no reply was received. A reminder was sent on 23 May 2019 asking whether the claims were being pursued, and there was again no response.
On 17 June 2019 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 1 July 2019 or to request a hearing so that it could consider why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing, so the tribunal struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not determine this claim on the merits; the entire claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment does not determine this claim on the merits; the entire claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not determine this claim on the merits; the entire claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not determine this claim on the merits; the entire claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not determine this claim on the merits; the entire claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.