Case 4105374/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4105374/2023 Miss P Pastur v Fun Scientists Ltd (in Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 4105374/2023
- Decision date
- 15 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4105374/2023 Miss P Pastur
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Miss P Pastur’s claim against Fun Scientists Ltd (In Liquidation) under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because the claim had not been actively pursued within the meaning of rule 37(1)(d). The Tribunal recorded that, after writing to the claimant on 3 October 2023 to say that the respondent was in compulsory liquidation and that court consent would be required to proceed, it saw no evidence that she had taken steps to obtain that consent.
A strike-out warning letter was sent on 30 July 2024, giving the claimant a deadline to respond. The judgment states that she did not respond, did not give reasons why strike out should not follow, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the Tribunal struck out the claim. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the ground that the claim had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). The Tribunal noted that, although there had been correspondence from the claimant, there was no evidence that she had taken steps to secure the court consent required to proceed while the respondent was in compulsory liquidation. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(1)(d)
- 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.