Case 4102797/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Murray v Teleperformance limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4102797/2023
- Decision date
- 6 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Murray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules on the ground of non-compliance with an Order. Following a preliminary hearing on 5 July 2023, the claimant had been ordered to provide specified information by 19 July 2023, but did not do so.
After the respondent applied for an unless order, the Tribunal gave the claimant a further copy of the hearing note and order and directed compliance by return email. The claimant did not reply. The Tribunal later gave the claimant until 1 September 2023 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing, but no response or hearing request was made.
The Tribunal found that a fair trial was not possible because the missing information was the basis of the holiday pay claim and, without it, the respondent did not have fair notice of the case it had to answer. It noted that an earlier order dated 26 May 2023 had also sought similar information, and concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to proceed to a final hearing without fair notice.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment identifies the information ordered as the basis of the claim for holiday pay and strikes out the claim for non-compliance with an Order under rule 37(1)(c). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- rule 37(1)(c)
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.