Case 4102873/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Barclay v Stewart Milne Construction — 2020
- Case reference
- 4102873/2015
- Decision date
- 1 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Barclay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn the combined cases 4102873/2015 and 4102872/2015, Employment Judge Robert Gall sat in Glasgow. On 3 November 2020 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 17 November 2020, or to request a hearing, if he wished to argue that the claim should not be struck out.
The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore 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 within rule 37(1)(d). No substantive merits findings or monetary award were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not identify this head of claim separately; the combined case listing identifies unlawful deduction from wages as one of the matters before the tribunal. The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not identify this head of claim separately; the combined case listing identifies working time as the other matter before the tribunal. The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.