Case 8000183/2024 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 8000183/2024 Mr S Keillor v Elektrix Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000183/2024
- Decision date
- 30 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sangster Employment
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 8000183/2024 Mr S Keillor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr S Keillor's claim against Elektrix Ltd under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the ground that the claim had not been actively pursued. The decision states that the claimant was asked on 28 March 2024 to provide further information by 11 April 2024, but no further information was provided.
The tribunal recorded that reminders were sent on 26 April 2024 and 1 August 2024. It then issued a strike out warning on 13 August 2024, giving the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 27 August 2024 or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out.
The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) for failure to pursue it actively. No substantive findings on the merits and no monetary award were recorded in the extracted judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The extracted judgment does not specify the underlying substantive claim(s). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d)
- rule 37 of the 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.