Case 4114979/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4114979/2019 Held in Glasgow Mr W Lappin v The Richmond Fellowship — 2021
- Case reference
- 4114979/2019
- Decision date
- 11 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4114979/2019 Held in Glasgow Mr W Lappin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Mr W Lappin's claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued, relying on rule 37(1)(d). The judgment records that on 23 November 2020 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 22 December 2020 or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment 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 under rule 37(1)(d). The judgment does not separately distinguish the breach of contract head from the unfair dismissal head in the strike-out decision. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment 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 under rule 37(1)(d). The judgment does not separately distinguish the unfair dismissal head from the breach of contract head in the strike-out decision. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d)
- rule 37
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.