Case 4118330/2018 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4118330/2018 Miss C Muir v Samena — 2020
- Case reference
- 4118330/2018
- Decision date
- 27 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clair McManus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4118330/2018 Miss C Muir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal for Scotland struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment records that the claimant was sent correspondence on 1 November 2018, 7 December 2018, 10 April 2019, 28 April 2019, 28 May 2019, 30 May 2019 and 3 December 2019 about consent of the court being required for the proceedings to continue.
On 6 January 2020 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 13 January 2020, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore made the strike out order. No substantive findings on the merits of the underlying employment claims are recorded in the extracted text, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) on the ground that it was not actively pursued. The extracted text does not identify the underlying substantive claim type(s). | 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.