Case 4111404/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v All Job Trading Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4111404/2019
- Decision date
- 2 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent had presented an ET3 and was represented at that stage, but the representative withdrew in December 2020 and there was then no contact from the respondent with the Tribunal. On 14 April 2021 the Tribunal gave the respondent until 28 April 2021 to provide written reasons or request a hearing about why the response should not be struck out.
The respondent did not give an acceptable reason or request a hearing, and the Tribunal struck out the response under rule 37(1)(d) on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records no substantive findings on the underlying complaints and records no remedy.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the respondent's response under rule 37(1)(d) because the matter had not been actively pursued; it does not determine the breach of contract claim on its merits. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment struck out the respondent's response under rule 37(1)(d) because the matter had not been actively pursued; it does not determine the disability discrimination claim on its merits. | Other | Disability | — |
| Other | The judgment struck out the respondent's response under rule 37(1)(d) because the matter had not been actively pursued; the short judgment does not identify the underlying issue further. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the respondent's response under rule 37(1)(d) because the matter had not been actively pursued; it does not determine the unfair dismissal claim on its merits. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out the respondent's response under rule 37(1)(d) because the matter had not been actively pursued; it does not determine the unlawful deduction from wages claim on its merits. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment struck out the respondent's response under rule 37(1)(d) because the matter had not been actively pursued; it does not determine the working time claim on its merits. |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) of the 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.