Case 4112562/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Sinnamon Cm Comms Ltd v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 4112562/2019
- Decision date
- 31 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs K Sinnamon Cm Comms Ltd
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 2 July 2020 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to explain in writing by 16 July 2020 why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing. The Tribunal also asked her to confirm whether she intended to petition the court to restore the respondent, which had been dissolved, to the companies house register. The claimant was told that the claim might be struck out if she did not provide acceptable reasons.
The claimant did not give any reasons and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The Tribunal had given the claimant until 16 July 2020 to provide written reasons or request a hearing, and asked her to confirm whether she intended to petition to restore the dissolved respondent to the companies house register. She did not provide reasons and did not request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 37(1)(d) not actively pursued
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.