Case 4106010/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Smith v Real Estate Signs Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4106010/2019
- Decision date
- 19 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs B Smith presented an ET1 on 27 April 2019. Notice of the claim and a final hearing listed for 10 July 2019 was issued on 1 May 2019, but no ET3 response was submitted. The tribunal later learned that Real Estate Signs Ltd was in compulsory liquidation, and the claimant was informed that permission of the court was required and that she should decide whether to seek that permission. The case was sisted for six months.
On 7 January 2020 the tribunal wrote again asking whether consent of the court to proceed had been obtained. No reply was received. The tribunal then gave the claimant until 24 January 2020 to provide written reasons or request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. As no response was received and no acceptable reason was given, the tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. No merits determination or remedy award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim type in the extracted text; it only states that the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | 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.