Case 8000844/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Gebremedhin v Heavenly Dessert — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000844/2024
- Decision date
- 5 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Gebremedhin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal for Scotland struck out Mrs A Gebremedhin's claim against Heavenly Dessert under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment is a short case-management decision rather than a merits determination.
The tribunal recorded that on 18 July 2024 it asked the claimant for further specification of the claims because the respondent had not lodged an ET3 response form. No reply was received. A reminder was issued on 5 August 2024, but again there was no response.
The tribunal then gave the claimant until 3 September 2024 to provide written reasons or request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out. There was no reply, and the tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No remedy was awarded and no substantive findings were made on the merits of any underlying complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not specify the underlying cause or causes of action in the strike-out reasons; it records only that the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) of the 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.