Case 4106014/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Verling v Represented by: Ascensos Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4106014/2019
- Decision date
- 2 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge MacLeod
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Verling
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal in Edinburgh struck out Mr M Verling's 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 within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment does not record any determination of the substantive merits of the underlying claim(s).
The reasons note that at a hearing on 7 August 2019 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 21 August 2019, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing, so the Tribunal struck out the claim on 2 September 2019.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim(s); it records only that the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d)
- rule 37 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.