Case 4112507/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Burton v Respondent — 2018
- Case reference
- 4112507/2018
- Decision date
- 14 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Porter
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Miss H Burton
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 6 November 2018 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 14 November 2018 or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing.
The judgment records that the claim was struck out under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on two grounds: non-compliance with a Tribunal order under rule 37(1)(c), and that the claim had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). The tribunal therefore did not reach the merits of the underlying claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37 for non-compliance with an order of the Tribunal and because it had not been actively pursued; it does not separately analyse this claim. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37 for non-compliance with an order of the Tribunal and because it had not been actively pursued; it does not separately analyse this claim. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37 for non-compliance with an order of the Tribunal and because it had not been actively pursued; it does not separately analyse this claim. | 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.