Case 4103328/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103328/2023 Mr S Gbadamosi v Optilan Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103328/2023
- Decision date
- 25 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103328/2023 Mr S Gbadamosi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, Optilan UK Limited (In Liquidation), had gone into compulsory liquidation. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was advised on 21 July 2023 that he needed to apply to the court for permission to continue legal proceedings, but there was no evidence that he had made such an application.
On 11 September 2024 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 25 September 2024, or to request a hearing, to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim 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). No substantive merits findings or monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant had been advised to seek permission from the court to continue proceedings after the respondent entered compulsory liquidation, but there was no evidence that he had done so. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant had been advised to seek permission from the court to continue proceedings after the respondent entered compulsory liquidation, but there was no evidence that he had done so. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant had been advised to seek permission from the court to continue proceedings after the respondent entered compulsory liquidation, but there was no evidence that he had done so. | 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.