Case 4102816/2020 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4102816/2020 Ms F MacDonald v HC-One Oval Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4102816/2020
- Decision date
- 20 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O'Donnell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4102816/2020 Ms F MacDonald
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Ms F MacDonald's claim against HC-One Oval Limited under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that the claim had not been actively pursued, as contemplated by rule 37(1)(d). The judgment does not record any substantive determination of the underlying wage issue.
The reasons section records that on 17 December 2020 the claimant's representative said the claim was continuing and that a schedule of loss and other documents would be submitted in due course, but no schedule or documentation was lodged. The Tribunal then wrote on 11 June 2021 seeking an update, and a reminder followed on 12 July 2021; no reply was received to either communication.
On 2 August 2021 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 16 August 2021 or to request a hearing to address why the claim should not be struck out. No acceptable reason was provided and no hearing was requested, so the Tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment was signed by Employment Judge P O'Donnell on 29 December 2021 and entered in the register on 20 January 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) on the ground that the claim had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.