Case 4111242/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Williamson v John Steele C/O Stirling Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 4111242/2019
- Decision date
- 30 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Kearns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Williamson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal did not determine the substance of the dispute. Instead, on 23 December 2019 Employment Judge M Kearns struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, specifically on the ground that it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d).
The reasons record that the tribunal wrote to the claimant on 8 November 2019 asking him to confirm the type of claim he was pursuing by 15 November 2019. A reminder was sent on 13 November 2019, also asking for comments on the respondent's strikeout application by 20 November 2019. The claimant did not respond.
The tribunal then gave the claimant a further opportunity on 22 November 2019 to provide written reasons by 12 December 2019 or to request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing, so the tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment was entered in the register and copied to the parties on 30 December 2019.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The extracted judgment text does not specify the underlying claim type; it states only that 'the claim' was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not having been actively pursued. The GOV.UK case listing categorises the matter as breach of contract. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.