Case 4103437/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103437/2022 Ms S Pina-Hernandez v DSA Practice Limited - In Compulsory Liquidation — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103437/2022
- Decision date
- 16 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Macleod Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103437/2022 Ms S Pina-Hernandez
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the respondent company had gone into compulsory liquidation. It noted that the claimant had been advised on 1 February 2023 that she needed to apply to the court for permission to continue legal proceedings, but no evidence was provided that she had done so.
On 17 April 2024 the tribunal 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. 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). The judgment does not determine the merits of the underlying claim and records no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not specify the underlying pleaded cause of action. The claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- 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.