Case 4111775/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Todd v Oyster Enterprises Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4111775/2019
- Decision date
- 11 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Todd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr A Todd’s claim against Oyster Enterprises Ltd under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment does not set out the underlying substantive claim types, but records that the respondent applied for strike-out on 26 November 2021.
The application was sent to the claimant on 3 December 2021 with a request for comments by 17 December 2021. No reply was received. A reminder was then issued on 29 December 2021 seeking a response by 12 January 2022, and again no reply was received.
On 19 January 2022 the tribunal gave the claimant a further opportunity to provide written reasons by 3 February 2022 or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No monetary remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not identify the underlying substantive heads of claim; it records that the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37 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.