Case 4118503/2014 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 4118503/2014 Mr S MacKay v Midlothian Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 4118503/2014
- Decision date
- 22 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 4118503/2014 Mr S MacKay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued in terms of rule 38(1)(d).
The Tribunal had given the claimant an opportunity on 30 January 2025 to provide written reasons by 13 February 2025, or to request a hearing, to address why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why such a judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing, so the Tribunal struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing categorised the case as Unlawful Deduction from Wages and Working Time Regulations, but the judgment itself refers only to 'the claim' being struck out and does not separately identify or adjudicate individual pleaded claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing categorised the case as Unlawful Deduction from Wages and Working Time Regulations, but the judgment itself refers only to 'the claim' being struck out and does not separately identify or adjudicate individual pleaded claims. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 38(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.