Case 8000311/2024 · Employment Tribunal
J Moodie v TGK Logistics Scotland Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000311/2024
- Decision date
- 13 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Moodie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal for Scotland, sitting alone before Employment Judge P O’Donnell, struck out the claimant’s case under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type beyond referring generally to the claimant’s claims and noting that the respondent had not lodged an ET3 response form.
The tribunal recorded that it wrote to the claimant on 2 July 2024 asking for further specification of the claims, and that no reply was received. A reminder was issued on 18 July 2024, again without response. On 29 July 2024 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 12 August 2024 or request a hearing on whether the claim should be struck out.
The claimant replied on 31 July 2024 saying they had lost their phone and access to email correspondence, and that they would telephone the tribunal the following day to progress matters. The tribunal then acknowledged that correspondence on 2 August 2024 and reiterated that a written reply to the strike-out warning letter had to be received by 12 August 2024. No further reply was received, and the claim was therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive cause(s) of action; it only states that the claim was struck out for not having been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). | 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.