Case 4110139/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Miller v Petrofac Facilities Management Limited — 2017
- Case reference
- 4110139/2015
- Decision date
- 13 September 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Miller
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, on the ground that it had not been actively pursued.
The claimant's solicitors had withdrawn from acting. A letter sent to the claimant on 05 July 2017 asking him to confirm his intention regarding the claim was returned because he no longer lived at the address provided on the ET1. The claimant had not given the tribunal a new address, so the tribunal could not communicate with him or give notice under rule 37(2).
In those circumstances, the tribunal assumed the claimant no longer wished to pursue the claim and struck it out under rule 37(1)(d).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. The judgment text does not describe the substantive Working Time Regulations issue beyond the listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(2) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.