Case 4112144/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4112144/2019 Mr R McCann v Devro (Scotland) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4112144/2019
- Decision date
- 28 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4112144/2019 Mr R McCann
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant had brought an unfair dismissal claim against Devro (Scotland) Ltd. On 10 December 2019, the Employment Tribunal offices asked the claimant to comment on the respondent's assertion that he did not have the required length of service to pursue an unfair dismissal claim and on the suggestion that the claim had been lodged outwith the required time period. No response was received, and a reminder email was sent on 19 December 2019 seeking a reply by 9 January 2020 and warning that failure to reply might lead to strike-out steps.
On 10 January 2020, the Tribunal gave the claimant until 17 January 2020 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing. The claimant did not respond, provide an acceptable reason, or request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. No remedy was awarded or assessed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The tribunal did not adjudicate the respondent's assertions about length of service or time limit. | 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.