Case 4105202/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G McEvoy v McCallum Food Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4105202/2023
- Decision date
- 5 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Kearns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G McEvoy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 22 May 2024 the claimant’s representative told the tribunal that they no longer had instructions to act and asked for future correspondence to be sent directly to the claimant. On 4 June 2024 the tribunal sent the claim form, notice of claim, and recent correspondence to the claimant and asked him to confirm that he still wished to pursue the case, but no response was received.
The tribunal issued a further reminder on 25 June 2024, warning that repeated failure to reply might result in strike out. The claimant was directed to respond within 7 days but did not do so. On 17 July 2024 the tribunal gave him an opportunity to provide written reasons by 31 July 2024, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but he did neither.
Employment Judge M Kearns struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, specifically on the ground in rule 37(1)(d) that it was not being actively pursued. The judgment records no merits findings and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it was not being actively pursued. It does not separate findings or remedies between the listed claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it was not being actively pursued. It does not separate findings or remedies between the listed claims. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d)
- not being 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.