Case 4107035/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4107035/2023 Mr M Saddington v Scottish Trust Deed — 2024
- Case reference
- 4107035/2023
- Decision date
- 16 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4107035/2023 Mr M Saddington
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M Saddington, wrote on 1 August 2024 saying that he wished to withdraw the claim. The tribunal then wrote on 2 August 2024 asking whether he meant only the unlawful deduction from wages head of claim or the whole claim, but no reply was received.
A reminder was issued on 16 August 2024 and again no response was received. The tribunal then sent a strike-out warning letter on 27 August 2024, telling the claimant that consideration was being given to striking the claim out because it was not being actively pursued and giving him until 10 September 2024 to reply or request a hearing.
No reply was received and no hearing was requested. The tribunal therefore 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 within rule 37(1)(d). No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant wrote on 1 August 2024 stating he wished to withdraw the claim, but did not reply to the tribunal's letters of 2 August 2024 or 16 August 2024, and did not respond to the strike-out warning letter dated 27 August 2024 or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(1)(d)
- 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.