Case 8000342/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 8000342/2024 Mr T McIntyre v First Endeavour LLP (In Compulsory Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000342/2024
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kemp Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 8000342/2024 Mr T McIntyre
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Kemp struck out Mr T McIntyre's claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that the tribunal wrote on 29 May 2024 to say the claimant needed permission of the court to proceed because First Endeavour LLP was in compulsory liquidation, and a further reminder was sent on 3 December 2024.
The tribunal noted that no confirmation of consent was received in reply. A strike-out warning letter was then sent on 24 December 2024, requiring a response by 7 January 2025 to lodge a reply or request a hearing. Because the claimant did not respond or give reasons why the claim should not be struck out, the tribunal made the strike-out order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 because it had not been actively pursued. A letter dated 29 May 2024 told the claimant that permission of the court was needed to proceed because the respondent was in compulsory liquidation; a reminder was sent on 3 December 2024, and a strike-out warning letter followed on 24 December 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 38(1)(d)
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.