Case 4104976/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Haslam v GS Associates (Scotland) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4104976/2024
- Decision date
- 5 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Haslam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr L Haslam’s claim against GS Associates (Scotland) Limited under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that the respondent applied on 7 October 2024, relying both on the claimant’s non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 12 September 2024 and on rules 37(1)(c) and (d).
After the application was made, the Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 8 October 2024 seeking comments, but no reply was received. The Tribunal then gave the claimant a further opportunity on 25 October 2024 to provide written reasons by 1 November 2024 or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. No reply was received to that further invitation either.
In light of that absence of response, the Tribunal concluded that the claim should be struck out under rule 37(1)(d). The judgment records no substantive determination of the underlying merits and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not identify a substantive pleaded issue beyond referring to the claim generally. Layer 1 identified the listed category as breach of contract, so that is used here. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 37(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.
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.