Case 4109382/2014 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4109382/2014 Mr H McFadyen v DHL Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4109382/2014
- Decision date
- 29 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4109382/2014 Mr H McFadyen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that, on 18 February 2021, the claimant was given until 4 March 2021 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing to consider that issue.
The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why strike-out judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. The claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category, as the judgment text does not describe the underlying wage claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. The claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category, as the judgment text does not describe the underlying working time claim. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.