Case 4103581/2018 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103581/2018 & 4108787/2018 Held in Glasgow on October 2019 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Miss K Kelly v Represented byMr S Healey - Solicitor Nestor Primecare Services Limited t/a Allied Healthcare — 2019
- Case reference
- 4103581/2018
- Decision date
- 18 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sandy Meiklejohn
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103581/2018 & 4108787/2018 Held in Glasgow on October 2019 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Miss K Kelly
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Glasgow on 9 October 2019, Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn considered case numbers 4103581/2018 and 4108787/2018. Miss K Kelly was represented by Mr S Healey, solicitor. Nestor Primecare Services Limited t/a Allied Healthcare, the first respondent, did not appear and had no representation; the second and third respondents were represented by Mr P J Harvey, solicitor.
The tribunal recorded that the first respondent was in administration and had previously been under a company voluntary arrangement. It found that neither the joint administrators nor the joint supervisors of the CVA wished to participate in the proceedings. In those circumstances, the ET3 responses lodged by the first respondent in respect of both case numbers were treated as not being actively pursued.
The tribunal therefore struck out the first respondent's responses under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment is procedural only and does not determine the merits of the whistleblowing/public interest disclosure or unfair dismissal claims, and it records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment does not determine the merits of the public interest disclosure claim; it strikes out the first respondent's responses under rule 37(1)(d) because they were not actively pursued. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal claim; it strikes out the first respondent's responses under rule 37(1)(d) because they were not actively pursued. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) 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.