Case 4112033/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Hood Salons Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4112033/2019
- Decision date
- 14 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a strike-out decision, not a merits determination. A continued hearing was listed by telephone conference call for 1 April 2020, but the claimant did not participate. The clerk attempted to telephone the claimant, but the number on record did not connect.
Following that, Employment Judge McMahon directed the clerk to email the claimant and ask her to contact the tribunal office by 15 April 2020 to confirm whether she wished to continue with the claim. No reply was received. On 9 June 2020 the tribunal gave the claimant a further opportunity to provide written reasons by 23 June 2020, or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out.
The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. No remedy was awarded and no underlying claims were determined on their merits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, specifically rule 37(1)(d), because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- 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.