Case 4104644/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v 1st Lets (UK) Ltd (Dissolved) and others — 2019
- Case reference
- 4104644/2018
- Decision date
- 6 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laura Doherty
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal in Glasgow struck out the respondent's response under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The reason given was that the response had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment is a procedural decision and does not decide the substantive merits of the claimant's case.
The tribunal recorded that it wrote to the respondent on 31 December 2018 after the respondent's agent withdrew, asking whether another representative would be appointed. No response was received. A further letter was sent asking for a reply by 17 January 2019, but again no response was received.
On 23 January 2019 the tribunal gave the respondent an opportunity to provide written reasons by 6 February 2019 or to request a hearing to explain why the response should not be struck out. The respondent did not provide an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the response.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the respondent's response under rule 37 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). The judgment does not determine the underlying merits of the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.