Case 4114422/2014 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I MacGillivray v Aramark US Offshore Services LLC — 2017
- Case reference
- 4114422/2014
- Decision date
- 20 September 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I MacGillivray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued.
After the claimant's solicitor withdrew from acting, the Tribunal wrote to the claimant seeking his intentions for the future conduct of the proceedings and later sent a reminder. No response was received. On 23 August 2017 the Tribunal gave the claimant until 6 September 2017 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason or request a hearing, and the claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The judgment identifies the claim only as being struck out under rule 37 for not being actively pursued; the working_time classification follows the listing category, with no further detail in the judgment text. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.