Case 4107159/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number 4107159/2023 Miss H Allen v Psymplicity Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 4107159/2023
- Decision date
- 23 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number 4107159/2023 Miss H Allen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Miss H Allen’s claim against Psymplicity Ltd (In Administration) under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claim had not been actively pursued. On 18 January 2024 the claimant was asked to obtain permission from the respondent’s administrator or the court for the claim to proceed, and the case was sisted for six months to allow time to do so.
After that, the tribunal sent further correspondence on 25 July 2024, 14 August 2024, 22 August 2024 and 30 August 2024 asking for an update and later giving an opportunity to provide written reasons or request a hearing. No reply was received to any of those letters. The tribunal recorded that the claimant failed to give reasons why a striking-out judgment should not be made or to request a hearing, and the claim was therefore struck out on 23 September 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not restate the substantive claim type, but the official listing for this case is Unlawful Deduction from Wages. The claim was struck out for lack of active pursuit under rule 37(1)(d). | 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.