Case 4104379/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A White v Rescue Recovery Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 4104379/2023
- Decision date
- 19 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A White
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal struck out Mr A White's claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment stated that the claim was struck out on the grounds in rule 37(1)(c), because the claimant's failure to comply with orders meant it was not possible to have a fair hearing, and rule 37(1)(d), because the claim had not been actively pursued.
The reasons record that the Tribunal had received no recent correspondence from the claimant, that he did not attend the preliminary hearing on 16 January 2024, and that his application made on the morning of the hearing for a postponement was refused because it was late. The note following that hearing was sent to the parties on 19 January 2024.
The claimant did not reply to the Tribunal's orders within the timescale set. Reminders were issued on 5 February 2024, requiring a reply by 12 February 2024, and again on 13 February 2024, requiring a reply by 20 February 2024, but no response was received. The respondent applied to strike out the claim by email dated 13 February 2024.
On 13 February 2024 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 27 February 2024, or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out. No response was received, and the Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No financial remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment does not set out individual substantive claims, but the case listing identified Public Interest Disclosure as one of the claim categories. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not set out individual substantive claims, but the case listing identified unfair dismissal as one of the claim categories. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not set out individual substantive claims, but the case listing identified working time as one of the claim categories. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.