Case 8001255/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Moran v Halfords Autocentres Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001255/2025
- Decision date
- 3 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Moran
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for a case management preliminary hearing on 16 July 2025. On the morning of the hearing the claimant emailed the tribunal saying he could not attend because of an unexpected family emergency. The postponement application was granted, and the tribunal then required him to provide evidence of the emergency within 28 days, stating that the emergency was understood to be health related and that evidence should be obtainable.
The claimant did not provide the requested evidence. The tribunal sent reminders on 25 September 2025, requiring a response by 2 October 2025, and again on 13 October 2025, requiring a response by 21 October 2025. On 31 October 2025 the tribunal gave him a further opportunity to explain by 7 November 2025 why the claim should not be struck out for not being actively pursued, but he did not respond.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on the merits of the pleaded claims and does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive cause or causes of action. The whole claim was struck out under rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.