Case 4113078/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4113078/2019 Mr R Muir v Earnock Limited t/a Earnock Builders — 2020
- Case reference
- 4113078/2019
- Decision date
- 19 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McPherson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4113078/2019 Mr R Muir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal did not determine the merits of the underlying employment claims. Instead, it struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because the claim had not been actively pursued.
In its reasons, the tribunal recorded that it wrote to Mr Muir on 22 January 2020 about the identity of his employer and asked for a response by 5 February 2020. No response was received. The tribunal then gave him a further opportunity on 28 February 2020 to provide written reasons by 13 March 2020 or to request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out.
The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No monetary award or substantive liability finding was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. It wrote to the claimant on 22 January 2020 about the identity of his employer and asked for a response by 5 February 2020, then gave an opportunity on 28 February 2020 to provide written reasons by 13 March 2020 or request a hearing. No response or acceptable reason was given. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) of the Rules contained in Schedule 1 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.