Case 4105425/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4105425/2023 Mr E Murning v The Secretary of State for Business and Trade Skye Care Limited (In Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 4105425/2023
- Decision date
- 16 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4105425/2023 Mr E Murning
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Mr E Murning's claim under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The written reasons say a letter dated 20 October 2023 told the claimant that permission of the court was needed to proceed against the second respondent because it was in compulsory liquidation.
Further reminders were sent on 27 November 2023 and again on 11 November 2024 asking for confirmation of the necessary consent or any other relevant information, but no reply was received to either letter. A strike out warning letter was then sent on 27 November 2024 stating that the claim might be struck out for not being actively pursued and requiring a response by 11 December 2024. No response was received, and the Tribunal therefore struck out the claim in the judgment entered on 16 December 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 had not been actively pursued. The text does not separate outcomes between individual heads of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The text does not separate outcomes between individual heads of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The text does not separate outcomes between individual heads of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) 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.