Case 4103915/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Giovanni Andreotti v Fun Scientists Ltd (in Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103915/2023
- Decision date
- 28 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Giovanni Andreotti
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, constituted by Employment Judge C McManus sitting alone, struck out Mr Giovanni Andreotti’s claim against Fun Scientists Ltd (In Liquidation) under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because it had not been actively pursued. The respondent company was in compulsory liquidation, and the claimant had been notified that he needed the court’s consent to institute or continue proceedings under the Insolvency Act 1986.
On 12 August 2024 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out for non-pursuit. The reasons state that the time limit for doing so passed and no acceptable reason was provided. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not separate disposal by head of claim; it strikes out the claim as a whole for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not separate disposal by head of claim; it strikes out the claim as a whole for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Insolvency Act 1986 consent requirement
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.