Case 4113774/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v My Easy Park Glasgow Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4113774/2021
- Decision date
- 6 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Graham Frew presented his ET1 on 21 December 2021 complaining of unfair dismissal and seeking redundancy payment, notice pay and holiday pay against My Easy Park Glasgow Limited. No ET response was presented on behalf of the respondents.
On 4 February 2022 the Employment Judge recorded that there was insufficient information to issue a judgment without a hearing and required further information from the claimant within 14 days. The claimant provided some information on 7 February 2022, but the tribunal wrote again on 16 February 2022 because the material provided was still insufficient and did not show how the amounts for redundancy pay, notice pay and holiday pay had been calculated.
The tribunal also noted that no amount had been included for unfair dismissal and it was unclear whether the claimant was pursuing that head of claim or withdrawing it. Further reminders and directions followed on 11 March, 23 March, 13 April, 26 April and 18 May 2022, but the claimant did not provide the information requested within the time allowed, or at all, and did not ask to be heard.
The judgment therefore strikes out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on two grounds: that the claim had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d), and separately that the claimant had failed to comply with a Tribunal order under rule 37(1)(c). No substantive merits findings or monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) and rule 37(1)(c) for failure to actively pursue the claim and failure to comply with Tribunal orders; the judgment refers to the unfair dismissal head specifically and then strikes out the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The ET1 sought a redundancy payment, but the judgment strikes out the claim as a whole for non-pursuit and non-compliance; no separate determination or award was made for this head. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant also said he was owed notice pay; the judgment does not give a separate merits decision and the claim was struck out before any award. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The ET1 included holiday pay, but the tribunal struck out the claim before determining liability or remedy. | Struck out | — | — |
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.