Case 4103963/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Hassen v Stopfire Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103963/2024
- Decision date
- 22 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Hassen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was for unfair dismissal. On 5 April 2024 the Tribunal wrote to Mr C Hassen asking for comments on the respondent's assertion that the Tribunal did not have power to consider the claim because he did not have two years' qualifying service. Although the claimant sent correspondence on 6 April 2024, it did not address qualifying service.
The Tribunal wrote again on 9 April 2024 reminding the claimant to address the point, but no reply was received. On 1 May 2024 the Tribunal gave him an opportunity to provide written reasons by 15 May 2024, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out. No reply was received.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made and had not requested a hearing. It therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim under rule 37 on the ground that the claim had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because the claim was not actively pursued after the claimant did not respond to the Tribunal's letters about the respondent's assertion on qualifying service. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- 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.