Case 4104776/2020 · Employment Tribunal

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4104776/2020 v Represented by: Jane Andrews M s M Dawson — 2024

Case reference: 4104776/2020
Decision date: 17 January 2024
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge M Sutherland Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4104776/2020

Respondent

Represented by: Jane Andrews M s M Dawson

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not set out the underlying merits of the claim, only the procedural history leading to strike out.

The reasons record that the case was sisted on 2 March 2022 and that the claimant was sent a number of reminders asking for an update on proceedings. On 18 December 2023 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 2 January 2024, or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out.

The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why the claim should not be struck out and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No monetary remedy was awarded or assessed in the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type; it records only a procedural strike out under rule 37(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue the claim.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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.