Case 4108779/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Anderson v L&R Martalo T/A Bothwell Bridge Hotel — 2018
- Case reference
- 4108779/2018
- Decision date
- 7 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shona Maclean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Anderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss N Anderson did not attend a Preliminary Hearing on 31 August 2018. By note dated 6 September 2018, Employment Judge Shona Maclean directed her to explain her non-attendance by 25 September 2018 and confirm whether she was proceeding with the claim, and if so to return the completed agenda by 5 October 2018. She was warned that failure to comply could result in strike-out.
No reply was received. On 15 October 2018 the Tribunal gave the claimant a further opportunity to provide written reasons by 29 October 2018 or request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason or request a hearing.
The Tribunal therefore 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 within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment records no findings on the underlying merits of the parental leave and unfair dismissal complaints and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parental leave | The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. The judgment does not determine the merits of this complaint separately. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. The judgment does not determine the merits of this complaint separately. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d) active pursuit
- rule 37 strike-out
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.