Case 4106024/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Commisioners for HM Revenue and Customs — 2019
- Case reference
- 4106024/2019
- Decision date
- 23 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Maclean Little
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an appeal by Little Flowers Ltd against the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. The tribunal did not determine the merits of any underlying dispute. Instead, it considered whether the appeal should be struck out because it had not been actively pursued.
The tribunal noted correspondence on 28 August 2019, 6 September 2019 and 4 September 2019 requiring the appellant to say whether it was insisting on the appeal and, if so, to provide reasons or request a hearing. The appellant's representative replied on 19 September 2019 that if the judge did not have power to adjust the level of penalty, the appellant did not see the point in pursuing the appeal.
The tribunal referred the appellant back to the previous correspondence, explained that it could not give legal advice, and asked for a further reply by 2 October 2019. No acceptable reason was provided for the appeal to continue, and no hearing was requested. The tribunal therefore struck out the appeal under rule 37 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Appeal 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.