Case 4104257/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D A T Desear v Mrs A E Desear KH Falcon Farm Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 4104257/2024
- Decision date
- 20 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr D A T Desear
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a procedural judgment in case numbers 4104257/2024 and 4104258/2024. The Employment Judge recorded that the first respondent, KH Falcon Farm Limited, had its representative withdraw on 14 August 2024, after which the Tribunal asked for an update on 15 August 2024 and sent a reminder on 23 August 2024. No reply was received to either communication.
On 2 September 2024, the Tribunal gave the first respondent an opportunity to provide written reasons by 16 September 2024 or request a hearing on why the response should not be struck out. Because of an administrative oversight, the warning letter initially referred only to case number 4104257/2024, so a further letter was sent on 20 September 2024 in relation to case number 4104258/2024.
The first respondent did not give an acceptable reason why strike out should not be made and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the first respondent's response under rule 37 of the 2013 Rules on the ground that it was not being actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). The judgment does not determine the substantive merits of the underlying claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment struck out the first respondent's response under rule 37(1)(d) because it was not being actively pursued. It did not determine the substantive claims. | 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.