Case 4115125/2014 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Peebles v Westcrown Contracting Services Ltd (In Administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 4115125/2014
- Decision date
- 10 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Peebles
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 20 November 2019 the Tribunal gave Mr D Peebles an opportunity to provide written reasons by 4 December 2019, or to request a hearing, in order to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The judgment records that he failed to give an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing.
The Tribunal therefore 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 within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment does not record any determination on the merits of the underlying employment claims.
No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) on the ground that the claim had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not distinguish separate outcomes for individual heads of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) on the ground that the claim had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not distinguish separate outcomes for individual heads of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37
- 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.