Case 8001779/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 8001779/2024 Mr B Jenkins v Tayside Health Board — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001779/2024
- Decision date
- 7 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McFatridge Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 8001779/2024 Mr B Jenkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr B Jenkins's breach of contract claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that the tribunal first wrote on 16 January 2025 asking whether the claimant intended to proceed and, if so, to identify the contractual terms said to have been breached within seven days, with an express warning that the claim might be struck out if there was no response.
A further reminder was sent on 28 January 2025 requiring a reply by 4 February 2025. The tribunal noted that the claimant still did not respond, did not give reasons why judgment should not be made, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Struck out under rule 38(1)(d) because the claim had not been actively pursued. The tribunal had written on 16/01/2025 asking the claimant to confirm whether he intended to proceed and, if so, to specify the contractual terms said to have been breached; a reminder followed on 28/01/2025. No response was received. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 38(1)(d) Employment Tribunals 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.