Case 4107598/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Kearney v Represented by: Aedis Regulatory Services Ltd. — 2019
- Case reference
- 4107598/2019
- Decision date
- 31 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macleod
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Kearney
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr P Kearney's claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment does not identify the substantive claim heads, and it deals with the case as a whole rather than determining any pleaded complaint on its merits.
On 25 September 2019, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 10 October 2019, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The reason given in the judgment for the later decision was that the claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment records the date of the judgment as 29 October 2019 and the entry into the register as 31 October 2019.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not specify the underlying heads of claim; it records that the claim as a whole was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of the Rules contained in Schedule 1 of 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.