Case 4113809/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4113809/2019 Held in Glasgow Mr A Bain v The Firm of Clydesdale Classic Cars — 2020
- Case reference
- 4113809/2019
- Decision date
- 18 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4113809/2019 Held in Glasgow Mr A Bain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 16 December 2020 the Employment Tribunal in Glasgow struck out Mr A Bain's claim against The Firm of Clydesdale Classic Cars under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The stated ground was that the claim had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d).
The reasons record that on 28 October 2020 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 11 November 2020, or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing.
Because no acceptable reason was given and no hearing was requested, the Tribunal struck out the claim. No substantive findings on the merits and no monetary award are recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | 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.