Case 4103189/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H McCahon v Roadbridge UK Limited (in administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103189/2022
- Decision date
- 28 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H McCahon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Mr H McCahon’s claim against Roadbridge UK Limited (In Administration) under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because it had not been actively pursued. The claim had been sisted pending clarification of any sums received from the Insolvency Service, and on 25 October 2023 the Tribunal wrote to the claimant’s representative for an update.
On 1 November 2023 the claimant’s representative asked for a further 14 days to take instructions and provide a substantive response, but nothing further was received. After a further reminder on 4 September 2024, there was still no reply. On 9 October 2024 the Tribunal gave an opportunity to provide written reasons by 23 October 2024 or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out, but no response was received.
In light of the continuing absence of engagement, the Tribunal concluded that the claim should be struck out. The judgment does not record any substantive determination on the merits of the underlying complaint and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not specify the substantive type of claim; it records only that 'the claim' was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | 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.