Case 4106853/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4106853/2023 Mr S Bruhn v Foodmek Limited (In Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 4106853/2023
- Decision date
- 18 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4106853/2023 Mr S Bruhn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr S Bruhn's claim against Foodmek Limited (In Liquidation) under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that a strike-out warning letter was sent on 28 August 2024 and required a response by 4 September 2024.
The reasons state that earlier correspondence had informed the claimant on 5 February 2024 that the respondent was in compulsory liquidation and that consent of the court was required to proceed. Further letters were sent on 17 July 2024 and 16 August 2024 seeking an update, but no reply was received.
Because the claimant did not respond to the warning letter, provide reasons why strike out should not be made, or request a hearing, the tribunal struck out the claim. No substantive liability findings or remedy award are recorded in the extracted judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. The extracted text does not identify any separate substantive claim type or any remedy awarded. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.