Case 6001069/2024 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 6001069/2024 Miss A Stoeva v CDS Labour Agriculture Limited (In Administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001069/2024
- Decision date
- 20 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 6001069/2024 Miss A Stoeva
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss A Stoeva’s claim against CDS Labour Agriculture Limited (In Administration) was struck out under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because it had not been actively pursued. The reasons state that a letter dated 16 May 2024 told the claimant she needed permission of the court to proceed because the respondent was in administration, and that a further reminder was sent on 19 November 2024, but no confirmation of consent was received.
The tribunal also recorded that a strike-out warning letter was sent on 29 November 2024. That letter said the tribunal was considering striking the claim out for want of active pursuit and required a response by 13 December 2024, including any request for a hearing. Because the claimant did not respond or give reasons why judgment should not be made, the tribunal struck out the claim. No remedy or monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive jurisdiction or cause of action; it records only that 'the claim' was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | 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.