Case 4111817/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Hastings v The County Tyre Group — 2020
- Case reference
- 4111817/2019
- Decision date
- 27 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Hastings
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal for Scotland struck out Miss N Hastings's claim against The County Tyre Group under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The stated ground was that the claim had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d).
The reasons record that the tribunal wrote to the claimant on 26 November 2019 seeking further information by 3 December 2019, but no reply was received. A further letter on 5 December 2019 informed the claimant that Employment Judge Whitcombe was considering striking out the claim and invited reasons by 12 December 2019.
The tribunal then sent a further letter on 6 January 2020 giving the claimant another opportunity to provide written reasons by 13 January 2020, or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not respond to that correspondence either.
The tribunal found that the claimant had failed to respond and had not given any acceptable reason why strike out should not be made, and had not requested a hearing. The claim was therefore struck out. No substantive liability findings or monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify separate substantive heads of claim. The whole claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued after repeated correspondence from the tribunal. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- 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.