Case 8000840/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 8000840/2025 Mr T McLaughlin v Renfrewshire Warehousing & Distribution Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000840/2025
- Decision date
- 1 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Eccles Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 8000840/2025 Mr T McLaughlin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge F Eccles struck out Mr T McLaughlin's claim against Renfrewshire Warehousing & Distribution Ltd under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not record any substantive determination of the underlying merits and contains no monetary award.
The tribunal's reasons record that on 23 June 2025 the claimant was asked to provide documentary evidence supporting his position that the respondent was still trading up to the date of his last day of employment, but no reply was received. A reminder was then issued on 3 July 2025 asking for a response by 10 July 2025, and on 14 July 2025 the claimant was given until 28 July 2025 either to provide written reasons why strike out should not follow or to request a hearing. No acceptable reason or hearing request was provided, so the tribunal struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for not being actively pursued. The PDF text does not specify the substantive claim type(s) beyond that. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- not actively pursued
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.