Case 4103996/2024 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103996/2024 Miss M Weir v Mitie Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103996/2024
- Decision date
- 24 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103996/2024 Miss M Weir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claimant had been asked by letter dated 12 April 2024 to explain why she considered she could claim unfair dismissal without two years' service and to provide information requested in the ET3 reply. No response was received.
A Notice and Order dated 29 July 2024 stated that the unfair dismissal complaint appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success and would be dismissed unless written representations were provided. No response was received, and the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed by letter dated 26 August 2024.
The Tribunal then wrote on 27 August 2024 stating that the claimant appeared not to be actively pursuing the claim and inviting representations or a hearing request within 14 days. No reply was received, and the Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed by letter dated 26 August 2024 after no response was received to an order stating it appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment strikes out the remaining claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment text does not identify the remaining claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d)
- rule 26
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.