Case 4106851/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4106851/2023 C Hunter v MCP Contracting Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 4106851/2023
- Decision date
- 12 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4106851/2023 C Hunter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningC Hunter presented his claim on 3 November 2023 against MCP Contracting Ltd. On 13 December 2023 the tribunal sent a strike-out warning because the claim appeared timebarred, no particulars had been provided for the 'second claimant', the claimant did not appear to have two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and the claim form referred to complaints the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to determine.
The tribunal recorded that correspondence sent to the claimant was returned on 30 January 2024 marked 'gone away'. On 8 February 2024 the tribunal wrote asking him to confirm a quantification of his claim, but he did not respond. The tribunal found that he had failed to give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made or to request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. No merits determination was made and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The reasons referred to a strike out warning, possible time bar, lack of particulars for the 'second claimant', no two years' service for unfair dismissal, and complaints said to be outside tribunal jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.