Case 4103061/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Arden Community Hall Association — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103061/2022
- Decision date
- 16 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment records that on 8 August 2022 the tribunal told the claimant there was no existing entity against whom the claim could proceed and sisted the claim for six months, and that the claimant might wish to contact the Charity Regulator.
On 3 February 2023 the tribunal asked the claimant to confirm whether the Charity Regulator had been contacted and, if so, what the outcome was. No reply was received. On 23 February 2023 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 9 March 2023 or request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. No reply was received to that further invitation either.
The tribunal found that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made or to request a hearing, and therefore struck out the claim. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify a substantive claim type; it records only that 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)
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.