Case 4107238/2014 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Galloway v Brake Bros Limited — 2017
- Case reference
- 4107238/2014
- Decision date
- 3 October 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Galloway
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, on the ground that it had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d).
After the claimant's solicitor withdrew from acting, the tribunal wrote to ask the claimant's intentions for the future conduct of the proceedings and later sent a reminder. No response was received. On 6 September 2017 the tribunal gave the claimant until 20 September 2017 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason or request a hearing, and the claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing category indicates Working Time Regulations, but the judgment itself only records that the claim was struck out for not being actively pursued and does not describe the substantive allegation. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(1)(d)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.