Case 4105528/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Case Number: 4105528/2024 & Others Miss L Hoczek (See attached Schedule) v Meraki Bar and Restaurant Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 4105528/2024
- Decision date
- 21 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge NM Hosie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Case Number: 4105528/2024 & Others Miss L Hoczek (See attached Schedule)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 of the Rules contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, on the ground that it had not been actively pursued under rule 38(1)(d).
The Tribunal recorded that letters were issued to all claimants on 22 October 2024 asking whether they wished to withdraw their claims because they were duplicate claims. Further reminders were sent on 31 January 2025 and 26 March 2025, but no replies were received from the claimants in the schedule.
A strike-out warning was issued on 7 May 2025, giving the scheduled claimants until 21 May 2025 to respond. The Tribunal found that the claimants failed to respond, give reasons why judgment should not be made, or request a hearing, and therefore struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment does not set out the substantive claims, but the gov.uk listing categories identify Redundancy and Working Time Regulations. The claim was struck out procedurally for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not set out the substantive claims, but the gov.uk listing categories identify Redundancy and Working Time Regulations. The claim was struck out procedurally for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 38(1)(d)
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.