Case 4102726/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4102726/2023 & Others (see attached schedule) Mr S Deafley & Others v ODX Innovations Ltd (In Administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 4102726/2023
- Decision date
- 20 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4102726/2023 & Others (see attached schedule) Mr S Deafley & Others
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim in this multiple case under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013 because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that, by letter dated 05/06/2023, the claimant's representative was told that permission of the court was needed to proceed because the respondent was in administration.
A further reminder was sent on 02/09/2024, but no confirmation of consent was received. The tribunal then issued a strike-out warning letter on 28 November 2024, requiring a response by 12 December 2024 either to reply, explain why judgment should not be made, or request a hearing. No response was received, and Employment Judge McFatridge struck out the claim on 19 December 2024; the judgment was entered on 20 December 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The tribunal recorded letters dated 05/06/2023 and 02/09/2024 about the need for permission of the court to proceed because the respondent was in administration, and no confirmation of consent was received. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.