Case 4102220/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Number 4102220/2023 Mr A G Hampton v Menzies Parcels Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4102220/2023
- Decision date
- 11 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number 4102220/2023 Mr A G Hampton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal in Scotland struck out Mr A G Hampton's claim against Menzies Parcels Limited under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The reason given was that the claim had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d).
The tribunal recorded that it had sent the claimant requests for information on 24 April 2023, 11 May 2023, and 1 June 2023, but received no response. On 14 June 2023, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 21 June 2023 or to request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out.
The claimant did not respond, did not give reasons, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No merits findings or remedy award were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parental leave | The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment did not address the merits of the parental leave complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment did not address the merits of the wages complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37 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.