Case 4106873/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Perception Data Consulting (UK) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4106873/2020
- Decision date
- 15 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that on 13 October 2021 the tribunal asked the claimant to provide a schedule of loss with full workings and details of the period over which any benefits had been claimed, so that the Recoupment Regulations could be considered. No reply was received.
Further reminders were issued on 29 October 2021 and 16 November 2021, again without any response. On 9 December 2021, a Legal Officer wrote to the claimant saying the case would be referred to an Employment Judge for consideration of strike-out under rule 37(1)(d), and invited reasons for disagreeing or a request for a hearing by 23 December 2021. No reply was received. The Employment Judge therefore concluded that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made or to request a hearing, and the claim was struck out. No remedy was assessed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013 for not being actively pursued. The reasons section refers to an opportunity given on 12 January 2021, which appears inconsistent with the surrounding 2021/2022 chronology, but the strike-out basis is clear. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) 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.