Case 4117526/2014 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4117526/2014 Mr T Hughes v The Highland Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 4117526/2014
- Decision date
- 13 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4117526/2014 Mr T Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued, in terms of rule 37(1)(d).
The reasons recorded were that correspondence sent to the claimant at the address provided had been returned marked 'gone away', no new address had been provided, and the claimant's previous agents had withdrawn from acting and did not hold any address other than the one in the claim form. In those circumstances, the tribunal found that the claim was not being actively pursued and struck it out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim was struck out under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. The extracted judgment text does not separately describe the underlying heads of claim; this classification follows the listing category supplied in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the claim was struck out under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. The extracted judgment text does not separately describe the underlying heads of claim; this classification follows the listing category supplied in the case context. | 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.