Case 4104665/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Clark v Represented by: Mr G Watson Coasters Wine Bar Oban Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4104665/2018
- Decision date
- 23 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McPherson
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Clark
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the respondent's response under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. Employment Judge I McPherson recorded that the response had not been actively pursued within Rule 37(1)(d) because of repeated failures to respond to Tribunal orders and reminders following a Preliminary Hearing before Employment Judge Kearns on 16 April 2020.
The Tribunal had given the respondent an opportunity on 11 August 2020 to provide written reasons by 25 August 2020 or request a hearing on why the response should not be struck out. The respondent did not reply, did not give an acceptable reason, and did not request a hearing.
As a result, the Tribunal struck out the response and stated that the claim would proceed as undefended. It also directed that the case be listed for a Final Hearing by CVP with an estimate of two hours. No substantive liability findings or monetary remedies were decided in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not determine the substantive employment claims; it strikes out the respondent's response under Rule 37(1)(d) for repeated failure to respond to Tribunal orders and reminders. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(d)
- strike out under Rule 37
- 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.