Case 4103916/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Numbers: 4103916/2023 O H Smith v Fun Scientists Ltd (in Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103916/2023
- Decision date
- 4 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Numbers: 4103916/2023 O H Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal for Scotland struck out the claim under rule 37 of the 2013 Rules on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that by letter dated 3 October 2023 the tribunal informed the claimant that legal proceedings could not be instituted or continued against a respondent company in compulsory liquidation without the consent of the court, and the case was sisted for six months. The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant had taken steps during that period to secure the necessary consent for the claim to proceed.
The tribunal then wrote to the claimant on 28 August 2024 asking for an update by 4 September 2024, sent a reminder on 5 September 2024 asking for a reply by 12 September 2024, and on 16 September 2024 gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 30 September 2024 or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out. No reply was received to any of those communications. The tribunal therefore concluded that the claimant had failed to give reasons why judgment should not be made and struck the claim out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type in the extracted text. The tribunal struck the claim out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued; it also noted that proceedings could not be continued against the respondent company in compulsory liquidation without the court's consent. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.