Case 4114742/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms P Mulligan v Wm Morrison Supermarkets Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4114742/2019
- Decision date
- 28 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms P Mulligan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a preliminary hearing on 18 March 2020, the Tribunal ordered the claimant to provide a Disability Impact Statement by 8 April 2020. The claimant did not comply, and the Tribunal sent a written reminder on 22 May 2020 without receiving a response.
The Tribunal wrote again on 9 June 2020 asking the claimant to confirm by 23 June 2020 whether she wished to continue with the claim, and sent a further reminder on 6 July 2020 requesting a response by 20 July 2020. No response was received. On 30 July 2020 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 13 August 2020, or request a hearing, to explain why the claim should not be struck out.
The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why strike-out judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37 for not being actively pursued; it does not set out separate reasoning for this listed claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers to an order requiring a Disability Impact Statement, but strikes out the claim for not being actively pursued rather than determining the merits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37 for not being actively pursued; it does not set out separate reasoning for this listed claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37 for not being actively pursued; it does not set out separate reasoning for this listed claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- 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.