Case 8000390/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Blair Screen v Tony Macaroni Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000390/2024
- Decision date
- 18 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Blair Screen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, in a judgment by Employment Judge M Robison, struck out Mr Blair Screen’s claim against Tony Macaroni Group Ltd under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on the underlying merits of the claim.
The reasons record that on 17 May 2024 the Tribunal asked the claimant for further specification of the claims in light of the respondent’s failure to lodge an ET3 response form. No reply was received. The Tribunal then issued a reminder on 6 June 2024, again with no response from the claimant.
On 19 June 2024 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 3 July 2024 or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. No reply was received. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment was dated 17 July 2024 and entered in the register on 18 July 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment text does not specify the substantive type of claim; it states only that the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not having been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.