Case 4104415/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Agnew v The Alteration Company Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4104415/2020
- Decision date
- 10 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Agnew
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 8 January 2021, a preliminary hearing was heard before Employment Judge Walker. Neither party appeared. The tribunal ordered both sides to explain why they had not attended and to confirm whether they intended to pursue the claim and response, warning that the claim and/or response could be struck out if no reply was received. No response was received within the seven days allowed.
On 15 July 2021, the tribunal gave the claimant a further opportunity to provide written reasons by 29 July 2021 or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out for lack of active pursuit. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued in terms of rule 37(1)(d).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not describe the underlying substantive allegation in the extracted text. Classification as a working time claim follows the GOV.UK listing category provided in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(1)(d)
- not actively pursued
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.