Case 4108362/2021 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) CaseNumber:4108362/2021 Employment JudgeP O’Donnell Mr Z Powloka v Primestaff Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4108362/2021
- Decision date
- 14 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O'Donnell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) CaseNumber:4108362/2021 Employment JudgeP O’Donnell Mr Z Powloka
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because it had not been actively pursued. The respondent company was in administration, and the Tribunal recorded that neither the consent of the administrator nor permission of the court had been obtained for the proceedings to be instituted or continued, as required by the Insolvency Act 1986.
On 30 November 2021 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out on the basis of non-pursuit. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason. The Tribunal therefore ordered that the claim be struck out.
No substantive findings on liability or remedy were made, and no monetary award was recorded in the judgment dated 13 January 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive jurisdiction of the claim in the extracted text. The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Insolvency Act 1986
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.