Case 4112081/2021 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4112081/2021 Mr J Measures v Unity Well Integrity Europe Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4112081/2021
- Decision date
- 25 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hosie Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4112081/2021 Mr J Measures
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's claims under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It found that the claims were not compliant with the Tribunal's order dated 25 January 2022, had not been actively pursued, and could no longer have a fair hearing.
On 16 February 2022 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 23 February 2022, or to request a hearing, explaining why the claims should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing. The judgment dated 25 February 2022 therefore records that the claims were struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment text does not identify the individual claim label, but the case listing for this matter includes unfair dismissal; the tribunal struck out the claims under Rule 37 without determining the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment text does not identify the individual claim label, but the case listing for this matter includes working time regulations; the tribunal struck out the claims under Rule 37 without determining the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 37(1)(c)
- Rule 37(1)(d)
- Rule 37(1)(e)
- Rule 37 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.