Case 8000431/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 8000431/2024 Ms D Mcgrotty v Kura — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000431/2024
- Decision date
- 16 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Donnell Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 8000431/2024 Ms D Mcgrotty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningA preliminary hearing had been listed for 13 and 14 August 2024 to deal with disability status and time bar. It was postponed on the claimant's application, citing health reasons. The tribunal recorded that no substantive progress had been made after that postponement, and that the claimant had been ordered to provide further medical evidence confirming whether she remained unfit to deal with the proceedings and when she would be fit to do so.
Despite repeated requests from the tribunal, the claimant did not comply with those directions. On 24 December 2024 the tribunal gave her an opportunity to provide written reasons by 14 January 2025 or to request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for non-compliance and/or failure actively to pursue it. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason or request a hearing, and the tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 on the grounds of non-compliance with an order and directions under rule 37(1)(c), and because it had not been actively pursued and the lack of substantive progress meant a fair trial was no longer possible under rule 37(1)(d).
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole under rule 38; this entry maps that order to the disability discrimination claim identified in the case context. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole under rule 38; this entry maps that order to the unfair dismissal claim identified in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole under rule 38; this entry maps that order to the unlawful deduction from wages claim identified in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 38 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.