Case 4113018/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Gallagher Think Curious Limited v Represented by: M r R Byrom — 2018
- Case reference
- 4113018/2018
- Decision date
- 24 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F. J. Garvie
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Gallagher Think Curious Limited
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short procedural judgment. Following a preliminary hearing on 28 November 2018 at which there was no appearance from or on behalf of the respondent, a note was issued giving the respondent until 7 December 2018 to provide written reasons or request a hearing on why the response should not be struck out.
The respondent did not provide an acceptable reason and did not request a further hearing. The Employment Judge therefore struck out the response under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d).
The judgment does not record any determination of the underlying unfair dismissal or breach of contract claims on their merits, and it does not award any remedy. It is a procedural strike-out decision only.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not determine a substantive claim on the merits. It strikes out the respondent's response under rule 37(1)(d) because the response had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.