Case 4103315/2014 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103315/2014 Mr S Clark v Galliford Try Construction Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103315/2014
- Decision date
- 23 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103315/2014 Mr S Clark
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr S Clark's claim against Galliford Try Construction 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 does not record any merits determination of the underlying dispute.
The reasons state that on 9 July 2024 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 9 July 2024, or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing.
On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim. No remedy or award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not identify the underlying claim type in the text, but the case listing categories were unlawful deduction from wages and working time regulations. The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not identify the underlying claim type in the text, but the case listing categories were unlawful deduction from wages and working time regulations. The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37
- rule 37(1)(d)
- not actively pursued
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.