Case 8001358/2024 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 8001358/2024 Mr K Harper v McQueens Dairies Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8001358/2024
- Decision date
- 9 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 8001358/2024 Mr K Harper
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 28 October 2024 the tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under Rule 27 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and on 31 October 2024 it wrote to the claimant confirming that dismissal.
The tribunal then sought further information about the remaining heads of claim on 1 November 2024 and issued a reminder on 13 November 2024. On 21 November 2024 it gave the claimant until 5 December 2024 to provide written reasons or request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. No response was received.
The tribunal held that the claimant had not given an acceptable reason why a strike-out order should not be made, and it struck out the claim under rule 37 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued in terms of rule 37(1)(d). The judgment was entered in the register on 6 December 2024 and copied to the parties on 9 December 2024. No monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim under Rule 27 on 28 October 2024 and confirmed that dismissal in a letter dated 31 October 2024. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal sought further information about the remaining heads of claim on 1 November 2024, sent a reminder on 13 November 2024, and struck out the claim for not being actively pursued after no reply was received. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 27
- 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.