Case 4114414/2014 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Grieve v Aramark US Offshore Services LLC — 2017
- Case reference
- 4114414/2014
- Decision date
- 21 September 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Grieve
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 under rule 37(1)(d).
After the claimant's solicitor withdrew from acting, the Tribunal wrote to the claimant asking for his intentions about the future conduct of the proceedings. The claimant did not respond to that letter or to a reminder.
On 23 August 2017, the Tribunal gave the claimant until 6 September 2017 to provide written reasons, or to request a hearing, to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason or request a hearing, and the Tribunal struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing category identifies Working Time Regulations, and the judgment states that the claim was struck out under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not set out the underlying working time issue. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.