Case 4103435/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103435/2022 Miss M Smith v DSA Practice Limited - In Compulsory Liquidation — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103435/2022
- Decision date
- 13 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103435/2022 Miss M Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the 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 told on 1 February 2023 that she needed to apply to the court for permission to continue the proceedings.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not provided evidence that she had applied to the court for permission to continue the proceedings. On 17 April 2024 the tribunal gave her an opportunity to provide written reasons by 24 April 2024 or to request a hearing on 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. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim for failure to pursue it actively. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not identify the substantive claim type. The GOV.UK listing for the case describes it as an unlawful deduction from wages matter, but that is not stated in the judgment text provided. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- rule 37(1)(d)
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.