Case 4107653/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Goodwin v Spray Finishes Scotland Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4107653/2020
- Decision date
- 1 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Goodwin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had previously issued case management orders following a preliminary hearing, dated 16 July 2021. It reminded the parties on 10 August 2021 that the respondents were required to exchange documents by 27 July 2021 and to prepare and lodge a joint bundle by 10 August 2021. No joint bundle was produced.
In light of the lack of contact from the respondents, the Tribunal issued a strike-out warning letter. On 24 August 2021 the respondent was given the chance to provide written reasons by 31 August 2021, or to request a hearing, explaining why the response should not be struck out. The respondent did not provide an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the response under rule 37(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 for non-compliance with paragraphs 5 and 7 of the case management order. The judgment records no determination of the substantive claims and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not determine the underlying employment claims on their merits. It records that the respondent's response was struck out under rule 37(1)(c) for non-compliance with the Tribunal's case management order dated 16 July 2021. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(c) 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.