Case 4111354/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Greater Glasgow Health Board — 2022
- Case reference
- 4111354/2021
- Decision date
- 9 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whltcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent applied on 04 October 2022 for the claim to be struck out on the ground that it had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules.
The Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 10 October 2022 asking for comments on the application, but no reply was received. On 21 October 2022 the Tribunal gave the claimant until 04 November 2022 to provide written reasons or request a hearing about why the claim should not be struck out. No reply was received.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made or to request a hearing. The claim was therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued; it did not address the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued; it did not address the merits. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued; it did not address the merits. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) 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.