Case 4103973/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Mazurek v Scottish Action for Mental Health — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103973/2024
- Decision date
- 7 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Mazurek
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 2 July 2024, the claimant set out his position in relation to his claims and was then ordered to provide information. After he raised issues about the note of that hearing and sought to postpone the hearing that had been fixed, the respondent applied for strike-out on the basis that the claimant had not complied with the case management orders and had not focused his claim.
The Tribunal then sent several further letters and warnings, including requests on 12 August 2024 and 16 August 2024 for the claimant to clarify the outstanding issues and confirm whether he still sought a postponement, followed by further reminders on 4 September, 9 September, 26 September, and 7 October 2024. On 16 October 2024 a formal strike-out warning was issued under rule 37(1)(d), giving the claimant until 30 October 2024 to set out reasons why the claim should not be struck out or to seek a hearing.
No response was received to the warning, no hearing was sought, and no reasons were given why the claim should not be struck out. The Employment Judge held that the claimant had failed to actively pursue his claim and struck it out on 7 November 2024 under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment does not determine the substantive merits of the pleaded claims and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole for non-pursuit and does not separately determine this head on the merits; this claim type is taken from the case listing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole for non-pursuit and does not separately determine this head on the merits; this claim type is taken from the case listing. | Struck out | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d)
- overriding objective
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.