Case 8000147/2024 · Employment Tribunal

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 8000147/2024 Mr J S Berrie v The Royal British Legion Scotland — 2024

Case reference: 8000147/2024
Decision date: 21 August 2024
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge A Kemp Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 8000147/2024 Mr J S Berrie

Respondent

The Royal British Legion Scotland

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The judgment concerns a claim described by the tribunal as one of automatic unfair dismissal on the grounds of protected disclosure and other matters. The claimant applied for strike out of the respondent’s response because of non-compliance with case management orders. The tribunal wrote to the respondent on 19 June 2024 asking for comments, sent a reminder on 2 July 2024 when no reply was received, and on 19 July 2024 gave the respondent an opportunity to provide written reasons by 2 August 2024 or request a hearing.

The respondent did not give an acceptable reason why the response should not be struck out and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the response under rule 37(1)(c) on the ground of non-compliance with an order of the tribunal and under rule 37(1)(d) on the ground that the response had not been actively pursued.

The judgment does not determine the merits of the underlying dismissal or protected disclosure allegations and records no monetary award. It is a procedural decision only, made by Employment Judge A Kemp Date on 13 August 2024 and entered in the register on 21 August 2024.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The judgment records that this was a claim of automatic unfair dismissal on the grounds of protected disclosure and other matters, but the tribunal did not determine liability on the merits. It struck out the response under rule 37(1)(c) and (d) after the respondent failed to comply with tribunal orders and failed to actively pursue the response.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.