Case 4104726/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Anderson v : North Bay Pelagic Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4104726/2016
- Decision date
- 10 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hendry
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Anderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal in Aberdeen, before Employment Judge Hendry, struck out Mr C Anderson's claim under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because the claim had not been actively pursued. On 17 December 2018, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 31 December 2018 or request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. No acceptable reason was given, and no hearing was requested. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim on 10 January 2019. The extracted judgment does not set out any substantive determination on the merits of the underlying claim(s) or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued in terms of Rule 37(1)(d). The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim(s) in the extracted text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37
- Rule 37(1)(d)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.