Case 8000243/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Fingland v Upload Studios Limited (Dissolved) — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000243/2024
- Decision date
- 25 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Fingland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the respondent company had been dissolved. It noted that the claimant had not applied to have the company restored to the Register of Companies.
On 18 October 2024, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 25 October 2024 why the claim should not be struck out as not having been actively pursued. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. No merits findings or financial award were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment did not determine the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment did not determine the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.