Case 4110105/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Little Owls Nursery (Scotland) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4110105/2021
- Decision date
- 13 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal for Scotland, sitting with Employment Judge M Robison, struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). The judgment does not identify the substantive legal heads of claim, only that the case was struck out at an early stage.
The tribunal recorded that on 20 September 2021 it wrote to the claimant asking for an alternative address for the respondent after post sent to the address on the ET1 was returned. No reply was received. Reminder letters were then sent on 29 October 2021 and 16 November 2021, again with no response from the claimant.
On 2 December 2021 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 16 December 2021, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not provide acceptable reasons and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim.
No remedy was awarded because the case was struck out. The judgment was entered in the register on 13 January 2022 and copied to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive heads of claim; it only records that the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being 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.