Case 8000160/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Goodall v Ricky Scoular — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000160/2024
- Decision date
- 24 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Goodall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 24 June 2024, Employment Judge C McManus struck out Mr M Goodall's claim against Ricky Scoular under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). The tribunal recorded that on 28 March 2024 it wrote to the claimant because no response to the claim had been presented and asked him to provide further information in support of the claim and set out the remedy sought.
The claimant asked for an extension on 11 April 2024, and the tribunal allowed a further seven days on 19 April 2024. No reply was received. On 23 May 2024 the tribunal issued a reminder requiring a response by 30 May 2024 and warning that a further failure to reply might result in strike-out. No reply was received.
On 6 June 2024 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 20 June 2024 or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason 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 does not specify the substantive type of claim; it records 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) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.