Case 4108375/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4108375/2023 Mr M Mcmillan v TGK Logistics — 2024
- Case reference
- 4108375/2023
- Decision date
- 6 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4108375/2023 Mr M Mcmillan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 12 February 2024, the Tribunal asked the claimant to confirm the respondent's address within seven days. No reply was received. A reminder was sent on 22 February 2024 asking for an update by 29 February 2024, and a further reminder was sent on 2 May 2024 asking for a reply by 9 May 2024. No reply was received to either letter.
The Tribunal then wrote on 17 May 2024 giving the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 31 May 2024, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not provide reasons and did not request a hearing.
The Tribunal held that the claim had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 and struck it out. The judgment was dated 5 June 2024 and entered in the register on 6 June 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because the claimant did not respond to repeated Tribunal correspondence and did not request a hearing. The judgment did not separately analyse the heads of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because the claimant did not respond to repeated Tribunal correspondence and did not request a hearing. The judgment did not separately analyse the heads of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.