Case 4108617/2015 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4108617/2015 Mr A Proudfoot v Wood Group Industrial Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4108617/2015
- Decision date
- 11 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4108617/2015 Mr A Proudfoot
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that on 20 November 2024 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 4 December 2024, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out.
The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why strike out should not be ordered and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claim should be struck out. The judgment is an administrative strike-out decision and does not determine the merits of any underlying substantive complaint.
The extracted text does not specify the underlying cause of action, and no remedy was awarded. The judgment was issued by Employment Judge L Wiseman and dated 11 December 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive statutory head of claim in the extracted text; it records only that 'the claim' was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- 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.