Case 8000992/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 8000992/2025 Miss T Findlay v Japanese Fusion Limited (In Liquidation) — 2026
- Case reference
- 8000992/2025
- Decision date
- 22 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 8000992/2025 Miss T Findlay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal for Scotland, sitting with Employment Judge A Kemp, struck out the claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued, relying on rule 38(1)(d). The judgment does not identify the substantive claims beyond recording that the claim was struck out as a whole.
The reasons state that on 9 May 2025 a letter was sent to the claimant giving six months to obtain the court's consent to proceed with the claim. No reply was received, and further reminders were sent on 17 November 2025 and 9 December 2025, again without any response from the claimant.
A strike-out warning letter was then issued on 8 January 2026, giving the claimant until 22 January 2026 to respond or explain why judgment should not be issued. The claimant did not respond, did not provide reasons, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim type(s); it records only that the claim was struck out under rule 38(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 38(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.