Ms A Irvine v British Gas Limited — 2017

Case reference: 4105758/2014
Decision date: 6 April 2017
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
Venue: COET Scotland

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms A Irvine

Respondent

British Gas Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, on the ground that it had not been actively pursued in terms of rule 37(1)(d).

The Tribunal had given the claimant until 27 March 2017 to provide written reasons, or to request a hearing, to address why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why strike-out judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The judgment records that the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The substantive claim type is taken from the supplied gov.uk listing category, as the judgment text itself does not set out the particulars.	Struck out	—	—
Working time regulations	The judgment records that the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The substantive claim type is taken from the supplied gov.uk listing category, as the judgment text itself does not set out the particulars.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.