Case 4102721/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Storey v Whisky Merchant Trading Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4102721/2019
- Decision date
- 30 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Sorrell
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Storey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an Open Preliminary Hearing in Edinburgh before Employment Judge R Sorrell on 13 December 2019. The issue was whether the claimant had complied with Employment Judge Young's order of 17 May 2019 requiring written specification of the facts relied on for the age and disability discrimination complaints, and whether those claims had therefore been automatically struck out under Rule 38(1) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Struck out under Rule 38(1) for failure to comply materially with Employment Judge Young's unless order of 17 May 2019 requiring written specification of the facts relied on. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out under Rule 38(1) for failure to comply materially with Employment Judge Young's unless order of 17 May 2019 requiring written specification of the facts relied on. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 38(1) automatic strike-out
- Marcan Shipping (London) Ltd v Kefalas
- Scottish Ambulance Service v Laing
- Johnson v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council
- Uwhubetine v NHS Commissioning Board England
- Essombe v Nandos Chickenland Limited
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.