Case 4103033/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Tees v Pass Drive Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103033/2023
- Decision date
- 6 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Tees
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 11 July 2023 the Tribunal wrote to Mr Tees asking him to confirm whether he accepted that he did not have the necessary length of service to pursue an unfair dismissal claim, and to confirm the amount claimed for outstanding monies. No response was received. The Tribunal then sent reminders on 2 August and 16 August 2023, warning that failure to reply could lead to strike out.
On 12 September 2023 the Tribunal gave Mr Tees a further opportunity to provide written reasons by 26 September 2023, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. No reply was received, and the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason for the lack of response or ask for a hearing.
Employment Judge M Robison therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, on the basis that it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment does not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal or outstanding monies issues and records no award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. The unfair dismissal issue was not determined on the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. The judgment refers to outstanding monies but does not separately quantify or determine any wage deduction claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) 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.