Case 4105117/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Shannon v Argyll & Bute Council — 2017
- Case reference
- 4105117/2015
- Decision date
- 3 October 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Shannon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's solicitors had withdrawn from acting for her. On 03 July 2017 the Tribunal wrote to the claimant, on the direction of an Employment Judge, asking her to confirm her intentions regarding the claim.
The correspondence was returned to the Tribunal office indicating that the claimant no longer lived at the address given on the ET1. The claimant had not provided a new address, so the Tribunal could not communicate with her or give notice under rule 37(2).
In those circumstances the Tribunal assumed that the claimant no longer wished to pursue the claim. The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) on the ground that it had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. It does not describe the substantive Working Time Regulations issue beyond the listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(2) 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.