Case 8000019/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 8000019/2025 Ms S Swann v Conilon Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000019/2025
- Decision date
- 5 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 8000019/2025 Ms S Swann
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 4 September 2025 the Tribunal wrote to Ms Swann seeking further information. No reply was received, and reminders were sent on 16 and 26 September and 7 October 2025, but the claimant still did not respond.
A strike-out warning letter was issued on 20 October 2025, giving the claimant until 3 November 2025 to respond or explain why judgment should not be issued. The claimant did not respond, did not give reasons, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the grounds of non-compliance with an order of the Tribunal and that the claim had not been actively pursued, under rules 38(1)(c) and (d).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment refers only to "the claim" and does not identify the substantive cause of action. It was struck out under rule 38 for non-compliance with an order of the Tribunal and because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 38(1)(c) and (d) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.