Case 4102833/2014 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H Henry v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 4102833/2014
- Decision date
- 13 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs H Henry
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 15 January 2019 the tribunal gave Mrs H Henry an opportunity to provide written reasons by 22 January 2019, or to request a hearing, to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The judgment records that the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason within that period and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, specifically on the basis that the claim had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment does not record any substantive determination on the merits of the underlying claim.
No remedy was awarded because the claim was struck out. The judgment is dated 13 April 2019 and was sent to the parties on the same date.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim in the text, but the case listing category is Equal Pay Act and the tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- not actively pursued
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.