Case 6021216/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 6021216/2025 Mr K Bhalla v Whisky Merchants Trading Ltd (in Administration) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6021216/2025
- Decision date
- 5 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eccles Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 6021216/2025 Mr K Bhalla
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 judgment does not set out the substantive heads of claim separately.
The reasons record that on 13 February 2026 Legal Officer F Paton requested further information from the claimant to allow for a default judgment to be issued. No response was received, and reminders were issued on 16 March 2026 and 26 March 2026. The claimant did not respond to either reminder.
On 15 April 2026 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 29 April 2026 or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant failed to give an acceptable reason why such a judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing, so the Tribunal struck out the claim. 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 38 but does not identify the substantive heads of claim in the judgment text. | 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.