Case 4106404/2024 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4106404/2024 Miss G D Tasior v George IV Bar — 2024
- Case reference
- 4106404/2024
- Decision date
- 2 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4106404/2024 Miss G D Tasior
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy judgment dated 29 November 2024, entered in the register on 2 December 2024, Employment Judge M A Macleod struck out Miss G D Tasior's claim against George IV Bar under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The Tribunal relied on two grounds: non-compliance with a Tribunal order under rule 37(1)(c) and failure to actively pursue the claim under rule 37(1)(d).
The reasons state that on 24 October, 14 November and 15 November 2024 the Tribunal advised the claimant to resend copies of payslips and any other additional documents needed to progress the case. In the letter of 24 October 2024, the Tribunal warned that if the claimant did not comply with its orders, the claim might be struck out.
The claimant did not provide the requested documents. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the claimant had failed to comply with its order and had failed actively to pursue the claim after a strike-out warning had been issued. No merits determination or monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(c) and (d) for non-compliance with Tribunal orders and for not being actively pursued. The extracted text does not specify the underlying substantive cause of action, but the case metadata identifies the matter as a contract-of-employment dispute. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(c)
- rule 37(1)(d)
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.