Case 4103434/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Wright Leisure Ltd T/A Xercise4Less — 2021
- Case reference
- 4103434/2020
- Decision date
- 8 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that it had received no recent communication from the claimant. On 10 September 2021 it emailed him asking for an update on progress made obtaining consent of the court to proceed, and asked for a reply by 17 September. No reply was received. A reminder email was then sent on 21 September 2021 asking for a reply by 28 September 2021, but again no response was received.
On 4 October 2021 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons, or to request a hearing, to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not respond or request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued in terms of rule 37(1)(d).
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Underlying public interest disclosure complaint inferred from the case listing; the judgment itself only states that the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Underlying unfair dismissal complaint inferred from the case listing; the judgment itself only states that the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(d) 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.