Case 4104527/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v H W Tankel (Scotland) Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4104527/2017
- Decision date
- 19 February 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mary Kearns
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a claim on 8 September 2017 seeking a redundancy payment. By email dated 21 November 2017, the respondent's representative said the final instalment of the sum due had been paid, and the claimant confirmed that position in an email to the tribunal dated 23 November 2017.
By letter dated 18 January 2018, the tribunal asked the claimant to advise within seven days if the outstanding amount had not in fact been paid. No response was received. On 1 February 2018, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 8 February 2018 or to request a hearing on whether the claim should be struck out.
The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing. Employment Judge Mary Kearns therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success under rule 37(1)(a).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim presented on 8 September 2017 for a redundancy payment. The respondent said the final instalment had been paid, which was confirmed by the claimant by email on 23 November 2017. The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- rule 37(1)(a)
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.