Case 4103183/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Alan Grant v Buzzworks Holdings Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 4103183/2018
- Decision date
- 17 July 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Alan Grant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Alan Grant presented his ET1 on 6 March 2018 after ACAS early conciliation, stating that he had been unfairly dismissed by Buzzworks Holdings Limited. The claim was accepted and served, and the respondents lodged an ET3 on 9 April 2018 seeking further specification because the ET1 also indicated other claims without identifying them.
Following Initial Consideration on 22 May 2018, the tribunal issued standard case management orders requiring a schedule of loss and mitigation evidence within 21 days, and an Additional Information Order requiring better specification of the claims by 28 May 2018. The respondents then wrote to the tribunal on 1 June 2018 saying they had received no response and indicated that they would seek strike out if there was no reply.
The judge did not strike the claim out immediately on 6 June 2018, but directed that a strike out warning letter be issued. The tribunal issued that warning on 21 June 2018, giving the claimant until 28 June 2018 to provide written reasons or request a hearing. The claimant did not reply.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under Rule 37 on the grounds that the proceedings had been conducted unreasonably, there had been non-compliance with the Rules of Procedure and tribunal orders, the claim had not been actively pursued, and it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing of the claim. No merits determination or monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim form stated that the claimant complained of unfair dismissal. The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37 rather than determining it on the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 37(1)(b)
- Rule 37(1)(c)
- Rule 37(1)(d)
- Rule 37(1)(e)
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.