Case 4102796/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Barr v Asda Stores Limited — 2017
- Case reference
- 4102796/2016
- Decision date
- 26 May 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macleod
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Barr
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued, in terms of rule 37(1)(d).
The reasons record that the Tribunal attempted to contact the claimant by emails dated 7 February 2017, 29 March 2017 and 18 April 2017, but the claimant did not respond. On 9 May 2017 the Tribunal gave the claimant until 17 May 2017 to give written reasons why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing.
The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why strike-out judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. The judgment text does not set out the substantive unfair dismissal allegation; this classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. The judgment text does not set out the substantive disability discrimination allegation; this classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- 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.