Case 4106867/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 4106867/2024 & Others Ms L Horton & Others (See attached schedule) v CPR Realisations Ltd (in administration) — 2026
- Case reference
- 4106867/2024
- Decision date
- 1 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Hendry Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 4106867/2024 & Others Ms L Horton & Others (See attached schedule)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claims brought by Ms L Horton and the other claimants in the attached schedule against CPR Realisations Limited (In Administration) because they had not been actively pursued. It relied on rule 38(1)(d) of the Rules contained in Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment does not identify the substantive claim types.
The respondent's representative sought strike-out on 7 April 2026 after writing to each claimant on 2 March 2026 and receiving no replies from the scheduled claimants. The tribunal issued a strike-out warning on 24 April 2026. The scheduled claimants did not respond, give reasons why their claims should not be struck out or request a hearing. The judgment was sent to the parties on 1 June 2026 and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim types. It records a warning issued on 24 April 2026 with a response deadline of 8 May 2025; those dates are inconsistent. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(1)(d) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013: claims not actively pursued
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.