Case 4110063/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Emery v Petrofac Facilities Management Limited — 2017
- Case reference
- 4110063/2015
- Decision date
- 27 September 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Emery
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Rules contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The stated ground was that the claim had not been actively pursued in terms of rule 37(1)(d).
After the claimant's solicitor withdrew from acting, the Tribunal wrote to the claimant asking for his intentions about the future conduct of the proceedings and later sent a reminder. The Tribunal then gave the claimant until 13 September 2017 to provide written reasons or request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out.
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.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing category identifies the claim as Working Time Regulations; the judgment itself does not describe the substantive complaint, only that the claim was struck out for not being actively pursued. | 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.