Case 4103950/2018 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103950/2018 Mr S Banks v CE Electrical Contractors — 2018
- Case reference
- 4103950/2018
- Decision date
- 27 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mary Kearns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103950/2018 Mr S Banks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr S Banks' claim against CE Electrical Contractors under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that the claim had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). The written reasons record that the tribunal wrote to the claimant on 2 October 2018 asking whether he wished to continue with the claim and, if so, to provide the full calculation of the claim.
The tribunal then gave the claimant a further opportunity on 6 November 2018 to provide written reasons by 14 November 2018, or to request a hearing so that the tribunal could consider why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason or request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The reasons do not restate the substantive claim type; the case listing identifies it as an unlawful deduction from wages claim. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.