Case 4103317/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Shaun McGuigan v La Vita East End Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103317/2023
- Decision date
- 9 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Shaun McGuigan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal for Scotland struck out Mr Shaun McGuigan's claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the ground that the claim had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment records that the tribunal made that decision after the claimant did not respond to repeated correspondence from the tribunal.
On 27 June 2023 the tribunal asked whether the claimant had received the payment specified by the respondent in its ET3 response form, and if so whether the claim was still being pursued. No reply was received. A further letter of 14 July 2023 again asked for a response and invited comment on additional correspondence from the respondent about payment of the specified sum, but there was still no reply. On 24 July 2023 the tribunal gave the claimant until 7 August 2023 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing, and no response was received. The tribunal therefore found that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made or to request a hearing, and struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not expressly restate the underlying claim type, but the public listing identifies it as Unlawful Deduction from Wages. | 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.