Case 8000191/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Rettie v Community Integrated Care — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000191/2024
- Decision date
- 29 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Rettie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It did so on the grounds of non-compliance with a Tribunal order and because the claim had not been actively pursued.
The reasons record that on 26 March 2024 the claimant was asked to provide further information by 2 April 2024, but no reply was received. A reminder was issued on 5 April 2024 requiring a response by 12 April 2024, and again no reply was received.
On 10 May 2024 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 24 May 2024 or to request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. No reply was received, and the tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rules 37(1)(c) and 37(1)(d).
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The GOV.UK listing categorises the case as unfair dismissal. The judgment states that 'the claim' was struck out for non-compliance with Tribunal orders and lack of active pursuit, without separately addressing individual causes of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The GOV.UK listing categorises the case as unlawful deduction from wages. The judgment states that 'the claim' was struck out for non-compliance with Tribunal orders and lack of active pursuit, without separately addressing individual causes of action. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.