Case 4111714/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Z Wigham v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 4111714/2019
- Decision date
- 28 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Miss Z Wigham
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented an ET1 on 15 October 2019 against Ago and Lakemere Global Holdings Limited (In Liquidation). The first hearing, fixed for 10 January 2020, was to determine the claim and the identity of the respondent. The claimant did not attend, later telephoned the Tribunal to say she had not received notice of the hearing, and the case was relisted.
On 10 February 2020 the Tribunal wrote asking the claimant to confirm which respondent was potentially liable and to provide specification of each element of claim and the way it was calculated, so that consideration could be given to issuing a judgment under Rule 21. A reminder was sent on 25 February 2020, but no response was received. The Tribunal was also advised on 21 January 2020 that the second respondent had gone into liquidation, and the ET1 was served on the liquidator on 3 April 2020. No response was received from the liquidator.
The hearing on 31 March 2020 was converted to a telephone conference call because of Covid-related Presidential Guidance, and a further hearing was fixed for 26 May 2020. The Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 5 May 2020 asking her to confirm a telephone number for that hearing, and issued a strike-out warning letter on 15 May 2020, but there was no response. The claimant did not attend the 26 May 2020 hearing, and the Tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(d) on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. No substantive remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written judgment says the claim was presented under a number of jurisdictions, but it does not identify the individual heads of claim. The tribunal struck out the claim as a whole under Rule 37(1)(d) after repeated non-attendance and non-response. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal (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.