Case 4112360/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v L & D Plumbing & Tiling Services Ltd (In Administration C/o FRP Advisory Trading Ltd) — 2023
- Case reference
- 4112360/2021
- Decision date
- 10 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Kearns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment records that on 15 November 2022 the tribunal wrote to the claimant asking them to confirm whether they wished to proceed after the administrator had given consent, but no reply was received.
The tribunal then gave the claimant a further opportunity on 24 November 2022 to provide written reasons by 8 December 2022 or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out. No reply was received. The tribunal found that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made and had not requested a hearing, so the claim was struck out.
The judgment does not distinguish between separate pleaded heads of claim in its disposal, so the recorded outcome is that the claim as presented was struck out rather than determined on the merits. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; the judgment did not separate the pleaded heads of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; the judgment did not separate the pleaded heads of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; the judgment did not separate the pleaded heads of claim. | 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.