Case 8000535/2024 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 8000535/2024 Mr C Johnston v First Endeavour LLP (In Compulsory Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000535/2024
- Decision date
- 30 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 8000535/2024 Mr C Johnston
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal for Scotland struck out Mr C Johnston’s claim against First Endeavour LLP (in compulsory liquidation) under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). The reasons record that by letter dated 4 June 2024 the claimant was told he needed permission of the court to proceed because the respondent was in compulsory liquidation.
A further strike-out warning letter was sent on 9 December 2024. It told the claimant that the tribunal was considering strike out for non-pursuit and required a response by 23 December 2024, either with written representations or a request for a hearing. The claimant did not respond and did not give reasons why strike out should not be made, so the tribunal struck out the claim.
The judgment records no merits determination and makes no monetary award. It was signed by Employment Judge McFatridge on 27 December 2024 and entered in the register on 30 December 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; it does not separate individual heads of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; it does not separate individual heads of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; it does not separate individual heads of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(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.