Case 4110897/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Sumner v D And E Coaches Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4110897/2019
- Decision date
- 22 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Sumner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, Employment Judge M Whitcombe sitting alone, struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success under rule 37(1)(a). The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type in the extracted text, although it records that the claim was before the Scotland Employment Tribunal under case number 4110897/2019.
On 6 November 2019, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 20 November 2019 or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out. The tribunal recorded that the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason why strike-out should not be made and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No remedy was awarded or addressed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not specify the substantive claim type in the extracted text. It states that the claim was struck out under rule 37 on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success, after the claimant was given an opportunity on 6 November 2019 to provide written reasons or request a hearing and failed to do either. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(a) 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.