Case 4103131/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103131/2023 Mr D Matthews v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103131/2023
- Decision date
- 10 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103131/2023 Mr D Matthews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the case had been subject to a lengthy sist so that the parties could try to resolve the dispute through an internal process. The respondent informed the Tribunal that the claimant later decided not to pursue that internal process, and no update was received from the claimant despite repeated requests during May 2024.
Unionline Direct informed the Tribunal on 4 June 2024 that it no longer acted for the claimant. The Tribunal then wrote to the claimant at his home address on 5 June and 14 June 2024 asking whether he wished to pursue the claim, but no reply was received.
On 24 June 2024 the claimant was given until 8 July 2024 to provide written reasons or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. No reply or hearing request was received, and the Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim for not being actively pursued. This claim type reflects the gov.uk listing category; the judgment text itself does not set out the substantive pleaded claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the claim for not being actively pursued. This claim type reflects the gov.uk listing category; the judgment text itself does not set out the substantive pleaded claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Trade union | The judgment struck out the claim for not being actively pursued. This claim type reflects the gov.uk listing category; the judgment text itself does not set out the substantive pleaded claims. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) of the 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.