Case 8000567/2024 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 8000567/2024 Mr F Adams v Balkanproof — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000567/2024
- Decision date
- 2 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 8000567/2024 Mr F Adams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr F Adams's claim against Balkanproof under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It relied on rule 37(1)(b), finding that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious, and on rule 37(1)(d), finding that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The reasons record that the claimant failed to attend a case management preliminary hearing on 20 August 2024. After the tribunal wrote to him, he confirmed on 2 September 2024 that he wished to continue with the claim. The tribunal then relisted the case management preliminary hearing for 1 November 2024 by video and told him that, if he could not attend, he needed to provide medical evidence and a medical opinion about when he would be able to attend.
The claimant did not attend the hearing on 1 November 2024, did not provide medical evidence, and did not contact the tribunal or the respondent's representative to explain his absence. The tribunal clerk attempted to contact him by telephone and email using the details on the claim form, but there was no response. The respondent's representative then applied in writing for strike out on 6 November 2024, and that application was copied to the claimant.
On 13 November 2024 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 26 November 2024, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. He did not do so. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim, and the judgment was dated 29 November 2024 and entered in the register and copied to the parties on 2 December 2024.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The judgment does not set out separate merits findings for this head; the claim was struck out in full under rule 37 alongside the other claims. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not set out separate merits findings for this head; the claim was struck out in full under rule 37 alongside the other claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment does not set out separate merits findings for this head; the claim was struck out in full under rule 37 alongside the other claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not set out separate merits findings for this head; the claim was struck out in full under rule 37 alongside the other claims. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(b)
- 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.