Case 4110616/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Kilna v Wrighton Trade — 2022
- Case reference
- 4110616/2021
- Decision date
- 15 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Kilna
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that on 28 October 2021 the Tribunal asked Mr R Kilna to confirm whether he intended to apply to amend his claim to add a claim for unpaid wages, and asked him to confirm his position or state that the claim was to be withdrawn by 4 November 2021.
No reply was received to that letter. The Tribunal then issued reminders on 16 November 2021 and 30 November 2021 seeking further information and warning that failure to respond could result in a strike out warning. No response was received to either reminder.
The reasons section states that on 14 January 2021 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 28 January 2021 or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing, and the Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No substantive merits finding or monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not having been actively pursued. The reasons section refers to correspondence about a possible amendment to a claim for unpaid wages. | 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.