Case 4102243/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A McGovern v MITM Greenock Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 4102243/2023
- Decision date
- 21 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A McGovern
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge D Hoey struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that the respondent company had been dissolved and that, on 11 July 2025, the Tribunal told Ms McGovern she would need to apply to have the company restored to the Register of Companies if she wished to continue with the claim.
The Tribunal received no further correspondence from the claimant. It wrote to her on 24 February 2026 asking her to confirm if she was no longer pursuing the claim, and no reply was received. On 23 April 2026, the Tribunal gave her until 7 May 2026 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out. No reply was received, and the Tribunal concluded that she had failed to give an acceptable reason.
The judgment does not determine the merits of any substantive employment claim and does not identify any monetary remedy. No award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states only that "the claim" was struck out under rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. It does not identify the substantive claim type in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.