Case 4108613/2015 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4108613/2015 Mr W Loy v Wood Group Industrial Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4108613/2015
- Decision date
- 10 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4108613/2015 Mr W Loy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr W Loy's claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, relying on rule 37(1)(d) because the claim had not been actively pursued. The decision records that correspondence sent to the claimant at the address provided had been returned marked "gone away" and that no new address had been supplied.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant's previous agents had withdrawn from acting and did not hold any address for him other than the one in the claim form. In those circumstances, the tribunal concluded that the claim appeared not to be being actively pursued and therefore ordered it struck out. No substantive merits findings or monetary remedy were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not identify this claim separately, but the case listing category included unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not identify this claim separately, but the case listing category included working time. The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) ETR 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.