Case 4109120/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Mansuri v Mr Pizza Shake — 2021
- Case reference
- 4109120/2021
- Decision date
- 14 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Mansuri
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Laura Doherty struck out Ms S Mansuri’s claim against Mr Pizza Shake under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 because the claim had not been actively pursued. The tribunal recorded that, after a closed preliminary hearing on 10 June 2021, an order was sent on 23 June 2021 requiring compliance within 14 days, but no response was received.
The tribunal also noted that reminder letters were sent on 21 July 2021 and 4 August 2021, again with no reply. On 20 August 2021 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons or request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no response or request was received.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had failed to respond or give reasons why judgment should not be made and therefore struck out the claim. No substantive findings were made on the pleaded causes of action and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not determine the substantive pleaded claims individually; it strikes out the claim as a whole under rule 37(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue the case. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- 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.