Case 4107140/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C McGuire v Bottom Groundworks & Plant Hire Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4107140/2023
- Decision date
- 17 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C McGuire
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr C McGuire's claim against Bottom Groundworks & Plant Hire Limited under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The reason given was that the claim had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d).
The tribunal recorded that on 9 February 2024 the claimant wrote to say that the monies said to be due had now been paid. The tribunal then wrote on 12 February 2024 asking the claimant to confirm whether the claim was to be withdrawn, but no reply was received.
A further reminder was sent on 13 March 2024, again with no response. On 28 March 2024 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 15 April 2024, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no reply was received. The tribunal found that the claimant had not given an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made and therefore struck out the claim as not actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not specify the underlying monetary or substantive working-time complaint, only that the claim was struck out for non-pursuit under rule 37(1)(d). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 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.