Case 4118351/2014 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Finlay v Richard Irvin Energy Solutions Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4118351/2014
- Decision date
- 8 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Finlay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 7 January 2021, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 21 January 2021, or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out. The judgment records that Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman sat alone in Glasgow and that the matter concerned case no. 4118351/2014.
The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, on the ground that it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). No merits findings or monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not distinguish individual pleaded heads of claim; it states only that 'the claim' was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. This classification follows the case listing categories. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not distinguish individual pleaded heads of claim; it states only that 'the claim' was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. This classification follows the case listing categories. | 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.