Case 4113330/2014 · Employment Tribunal
The Executor of the Late Mr J Naylor (deceased) v Arrow XL Limited — 2017
- Case reference
- 4113330/2014
- Decision date
- 20 June 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
The Executor of the Late Mr J Naylor (deceased)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that, after the claimant's solicitor withdrew from acting, it wrote to the Executor of the Late Mr J Naylor asking for the executor's intentions about the future conduct of the proceedings. No response was received after the initial letter, a reminder, or a further letter seeking information about whether the claim was to proceed.
On 30 May 2017 the Tribunal gave the executor an opportunity to provide written reasons by 13 June 2017, or to request a hearing, to address why the claim should not be struck out. The judgment noted the possible difficulty arising from Mr Naylor's death, but stated that no explanation of any particular difficulty had been provided.
The Tribunal found that the executor had failed to give an acceptable reason why strike-out judgment should not be made and had not requested a hearing. The claim was struck out under rule 37 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out the claim for not being actively pursued. The text does not set out the substantive working time issue. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- 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.