Case 4103957/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103957/2022 Mr J Jeal v Health & Safety Executive (Inspector Julian Charles Tuvey) — 2022
- Case reference
- 4103957/2022
- Decision date
- 29 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103957/2022 Mr J Jeal
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. It did so on the grounds of non-compliance with tribunal orders contained in the case management note dated 15 November 2022, and because the claim had not been actively pursued.
The tribunal had given the claimant until 22 November 2022 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing for that issue to be considered. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing, so the tribunal struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole under Rule 37 without separately discussing the underlying causes of action. Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories supplied in the case context. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole under Rule 37 without separately discussing the underlying causes of action. Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories supplied in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole under Rule 37 without separately discussing the underlying causes of action. Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories supplied in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole under Rule 37 without separately discussing the underlying causes of action. Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories supplied in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37
- Rule 37(1)(c)
- 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.