Case 8001695/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Beaton v Autovantechnik Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001695/2025
- Decision date
- 16 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty Aaran
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Beaton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal in Scotland, before Employment Judge L Doherty Aaran, struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The extracted judgment does not set out a substantive merits determination of the pleaded claims.
The tribunal recorded that it wrote to the claimant on 19 August 2025 seeking further specification of the claim so that a judgment under rule 22 could be considered. No reply was received. Further letters were sent on 4 September 2025 and 15 September 2025, again without response.
On 25 September 2025 the tribunal gave the claimant until 9 October 2025 to provide written reasons or request a hearing to address why the claim should not be struck out. No reply was received. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not specify the underlying cause(s) of action in the extracted text; it states only that 'the claim' was struck out for not being actively pursued under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 22 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.