Case 4109172/2014 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Deigman v West Dunbartonshire Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 4109172/2014
- Decision date
- 19 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Deigman
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, relying on rule 37(1)(d).
The claimant had been given until 18 November 2019 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing on that issue. The Tribunal recorded that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason why strike-out judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim was struck out under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. The PDF text does not separately identify the pleaded claim types; classification follows the listing categories supplied in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the claim was struck out under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. The PDF text does not separately identify the pleaded claim types; classification follows the listing categories supplied in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.