Case 4108470/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 4108470/2015 Mr. G Short v Loomis UK Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 4108470/2015
- Decision date
- 24 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 4108470/2015 Mr. G Short
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal struck out Mr G Short's claim against Loomis UK Limited under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the ground that the claim had not been actively pursued in terms of rule 38(1)(d).
The reasons recorded that the claimant's solicitors had withdrawn from acting for him. A letter sent to the claimant on 10 April 2026, at the direction of an Employment Judge, asked him to confirm his intention regarding the claim, but the correspondence was returned to the Tribunal Office showing that he no longer lived at the address provided on the ET1.
The Tribunal recorded that the claimant had taken no steps to advise it of a new address, so it could not communicate with him and had been unable to give him notice under rule 38. In those circumstances the Tribunal assumed he no longer wished to pursue the claim and struck it out. No remedy or monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that the claim was struck out under rule 38 because it had not been actively pursued. It does not identify the underlying substantive claim type in the extracted judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.