Case 4116035/2014 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4116035/2014 Mr D Howley v Aberdeenshire Council — 2021
- Case reference
- 4116035/2014
- Decision date
- 10 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4116035/2014 Mr D Howley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr D Howley’s claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. The reason given was that correspondence sent to the address provided by the claimant had been returned marked “gone away”, no new address had been provided, and the claimant’s previous agents had withdrawn from acting for him while holding no other address for him than the one in the claim form.
On that basis, Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman concluded that the claim appeared not to be actively pursued and ordered it struck out. The judgment does not contain findings on the underlying merits of the tribunal claims, and no 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 because the claim was not being actively pursued; the tribunal did not determine the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Struck out under rule 37 because the claim was not being actively pursued; the tribunal did not determine the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.