Case 4105329/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Falconer v Saur Services (Glasgow) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4105329/2020
- Decision date
- 26 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Falconer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr F Falconer presented a claim of unfair dismissal on 30 September 2020 against Saur Services (Glasgow) Limited. On 14 December 2020 his agent withdrew from acting for him, and the claimant did not confirm any alternate representative. The respondent then applied for strike out on 22 January 2021, and the tribunal sought the claimant's consent, but he did not reply.
The tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity on 23 February 2021 to provide written reasons by 9 March 2021 or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. He did not provide an acceptable reason or request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim struck out under rule 37 because the tribunal found it had not been actively pursued. The claimant's representative withdrew on 14 December 2020, he did not confirm an alternative representative, did not respond to the tribunal's correspondence, and did not give an acceptable reason or request a hearing after being given the opportunity to do so. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(1)(d) not 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.