Case 4113907/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Chatburn v Duncan Adams Limited (in Administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 4113907/2019
- Decision date
- 10 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Chatburn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim 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 records that the respondent company was in administration, and that the claimant had been told on 10 December 2019 that he needed the administrator's consent or the court's permission to proceed with the claim.
After further letters from the tribunal on 10 June 2020 and 30 June 2020 seeking an update, no response was received. On 21 July 2020 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 4 August 2020, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not reply and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules because the claim had not been actively pursued. The tribunal had previously written on 10 December 2019 explaining that the respondent was in administration and that the claimant needed the administrator's consent or the court's permission to proceed, then sent follow-up correspondence on 10 June 2020, 30 June 2020, and 21 July 2020. No response was received and no acceptable reason or hearing request was given by 4 August 2020. | 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.