Case 4108698/2014 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C MacFarlane v The City of Edinburgh Council — 2021
- Case reference
- 4108698/2014
- Decision date
- 20 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C MacFarlane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d).
The reasons given were that correspondence sent to the claimant at the address provided had been returned marked 'gone away', no new address had been provided, and the claimant's previous agents had withdrawn from acting for him and held no other address. In those circumstances the Tribunal concluded that the claim was not being actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as Unlawful Deduction from Wages, but the judgment itself does not describe the underlying allegations; it records that the claim was struck out under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as Working Time Regulations, but the judgment itself does not describe the underlying allegations; it records that the claim was struck out under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.