Case 4105563/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4105563/2022 Mr B Clayton v Nathan Ross — 2023
- Case reference
- 4105563/2022
- Decision date
- 4 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4105563/2022 Mr B Clayton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. The reasons record that the claimant failed to engage meaningfully with the tribunal after sending an inappropriate and abusive email on 7 December 2022.
On 7 February 2023 the tribunal sent a strike-out warning letter requiring the claimant to provide written reasons by 15 February 2023 or to request a hearing so that the tribunal could consider why the claim should not be struck out. No reply was received. A further letter was sent on 21 February 2023, again requesting a response by 27 February 2023, and no reply was received.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing. It therefore struck out the claim. The judgment does not contain any merits findings on the underlying dispute and does not identify the substantive claims in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not specify the underlying pleaded cause(s) of action; it records only that the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
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.