Case 4115034/2014 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Murray v Honeywell Control Systems Limited — 2017
- Case reference
- 4115034/2014
- Decision date
- 20 June 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
- Venue
- COET Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Murray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that, after the claimant's solicitor withdrew from acting, it wrote to the claimant seeking his intentions about the future conduct of the proceedings. No response was received, and no response followed a reminder.
On 30 May 2017 the Tribunal gave the claimant until 13 June 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 why a strike-out judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim on the ground that it had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing category identifies the case as Working Time Regulations. The judgment itself does not set out the underlying working time issue; it records that the claim was struck out for not being actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.