Case 4109884/2014 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4109884/2014 Held in COET Scotland Mr M McGhee v Inverclyde Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 4109884/2014
- Decision date
- 23 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4109884/2014 Held in COET Scotland Mr M McGhee
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The stated ground was that the claim had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d).
The Tribunal had given the claimant an opportunity on 3 September 2019 to provide written reasons by 17 September 2019, or to request a hearing, to address why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why such a judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The judgment identifies the claim only as having been struck out for not being actively pursued; the working_time classification follows the listing category and Layer 1 hint rather than detailed reasons in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of Schedule 1 to 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.