Case 4105456/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Rasoul v The London Clinic — 2021
- Case reference
- 4105456/2020
- Decision date
- 15 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Rasoul
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claim was served on The London Clinic at 5 Brittain Way, Motherwell on 15 October 2020. At a preliminary hearing on 6 January 2021, Gist Limited was added as a respondent, but it stated in its ET3 response that it did not employ the claimant. At an open preliminary hearing on 1 June 2021, Gist Limited was dismissed and The London Clinic was named as the correct respondent.
The Tribunal then tried to re-serve the claim at a number of addresses, including Craiglea House, Glasgow, 2 Craigpark, Glasgow, and the Community Build Limited address at The Cooper Building, 505 Great Western Road, Glasgow. Those service attempts were unsuccessful. The claimant was told on 22 July 2021 and again on 13 October 2021 that service had not been possible and was asked to provide an address for service, but no reply was received.
On 17 November 2021, the claimant was given an opportunity to provide written reasons or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. No response was received, and a further warning was issued on 29 November 2021. The Tribunal held that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason why strike out should not be made or to request a hearing, and it struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) on the basis that it had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states only that the claim is struck out because it had not been actively pursued; the claim type is taken from the listing category/context. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) of the 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.