Case 4103442/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103442/2022 Ms L Rubim v DSA Practice Limited - In Compulsory Liquidation — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103442/2022
- Decision date
- 16 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Macleod Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103442/2022 Ms L Rubim
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Ms Rubim’s claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment records that DSA Practice Limited was in compulsory liquidation and that 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 found that the claimant had not provided evidence that she had applied to the court for permission to continue. It also recorded that on 17 April 2024 she was given an opportunity to provide written reasons by 24 April 2024, or to request a hearing, explaining why the claim should not be struck out. She did not give an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing, so the Tribunal struck out the claim for failure to pursue it actively.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not identify the underlying claim type in the text; this classification follows the case listing/category provided alongside the decision. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37
- rule 37(1)(d)
- Schedule 1 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.