Case 4103433/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103433/2022 Mrs D Woodward v DSA Practice Limited - In Compulsory — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103433/2022
- Decision date
- 16 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Macleod Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103433/2022 Mrs D Woodward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mrs Woodward's claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). The respondent company had gone into compulsory liquidation, and the claimant had been advised on 1 February 2023 that she needed to apply to the court for permission to continue legal proceedings. The tribunal recorded that she had not provided evidence that such an application had been made.
The tribunal also noted that on 17 April 2024 it gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 24 April 2024, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. It found that she failed to give an acceptable reason or request a hearing, and therefore struck out the claim for failure to pursue it actively. The judgment was signed by Employment Judge M Macleod on 13 May 2024 and entered in the register on 16 May 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not describe the substantive claim in detail; the claim type is taken from the case listing. The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d)
- rule 37
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.