Case 4108341/2014 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Robertson v Bear Scotland Limited — 2017
- Case reference
- 4108341/2014
- Decision date
- 12 September 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Robertson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr J Robertson's claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued, relying on rule 37(1)(d). The decision was issued by Employment Judge Robert Gall sitting alone in Glasgow on 12 September 2017.
The reasons record that, after the claimant's solicitor withdrew from acting, the tribunal wrote to Mr Robertson asking for his intentions about the future conduct of the proceedings. No response was received, and a reminder was sent. The claimant still did not reply.
The tribunal then gave Mr Robertson an opportunity on 3 August 2017 to provide written reasons by 17 August 2017, or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out. He did not give an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type in the body of the text. The case listing category supplied with the file is Working Time Regulations. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d)
- Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.