Case 4105324/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L McGinty v Secretary of State for Business and Trade st and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 4105324/2023
- Decision date
- 10 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macleod
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms L McGinty
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Ms L McGinty’s claim against both respondents under rule 39(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that the 2nd respondent company was in compulsory liquidation and that the claimant had been notified of the need to obtain court consent under the Insolvency Act 1986 before the proceedings could be instituted or continued, but no such consent was obtained.
The tribunal had given the claimant an opportunity on 15 March 2024 to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided within the time allowed. It then wrote again on 19 November 2024, this time in relation to the claimant’s broader failure to reply to the tribunal’s correspondence, and again no acceptable reason was provided. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim as against both the 1st and 2nd respondents.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 39(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; it does not determine the merits of this pleaded head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 39(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; it does not determine the merits of this pleaded head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 39(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; it does not determine the merits of this pleaded head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 39(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; it does not determine the merits of this pleaded head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 39(1)(d) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Insolvency Act 1986
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.