Case 4110059/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4110059/2019 Miss A MacKay v Holland & Barrett Retail Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4110059/2019
- Decision date
- 6 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4110059/2019 Miss A MacKay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant wrote to the Employment Tribunal on 22 November 2019 saying she wished to withdraw the claim because she no longer had representation and was unable to represent herself because of stress. An Employment Judge directed that the letter be placed on file and told the claimant that she did not need representation in order to continue with her case.
The case was listed for hearing on 30 March to 2 April 2020. The respondent’s representative asked for an order for additional information by email on 10 January 2020, and the Tribunal wrote to the claimant seeking her comments. The claimant did not reply.
An Employment Judge then directed that the claimant be asked whether she was pursuing the claim. On 20 January 2020 the Tribunal gave her an opportunity to provide written reasons by 3 February 2020, or to request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. She did not give an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing, so the Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not identify the substantive claim type(s). The Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. | 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.