Case 4111873/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Cygnet Healthcare — 2020
- Case reference
- 4111873/2019
- Decision date
- 14 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Hoey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss K McMurtrie presented a claim on 24 October 2019. A preliminary hearing was fixed for 21 February 2020, but she did not attend and did not notify the Tribunal in advance that she would not be attending.
Following that hearing, the Tribunal issued orders requiring compliance by 13 March 2020. The claimant did not comply with those orders. On 8 June 2020, the Tribunal gave her an opportunity to provide written reasons by 22 June 2020 or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided and no hearing was requested.
The Employment Judge, David Hoey, therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the grounds of non-compliance with Tribunal orders and because the claim had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not identify the substantive claim type(s). The case was struck out under rule 37(1)(c) and rule 37(1)(d) for non-compliance with Tribunal orders and because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(c)
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.