Case 4112510/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr S McKie v Maplin Electronics (in administration) — 2019

Case reference: 4112510/2018
Decision date: 2 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge Walker

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr S McKie

Respondent

Maplin Electronics (in administration)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

In case 4112510/2018, Employment Judge Walker recorded that Mr S McKie's claim against Maplin Electronics Ltd (in administration) was struck out under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment states that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success within rule 37(1)(a) because the administrator did not consent to the claim proceeding.

The decision is a strike-out order only. It does not contain findings on the merits of the underlying redundancy or protective award issues, and it records no monetary award. The judgment was dated 30 April 2019 and entered in the register on 2 May 2019.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment does not identify the substantive claim label, but the case context listed a Protective Award category. It was struck out under rule 37(1)(a) because the administrator did not consent to the claim proceeding.	Struck out	—	—
Redundancy	The case context listed Redundancy as a category. The judgment struck the claim out under rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success and the administrator did not consent to the claim proceeding.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.