Case 8001920/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 8001920/2024 Mr S Mcdonald v XDP Logistics (Steven) — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001920/2024
- Decision date
- 5 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J McCluskey Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 8001920/2024 Mr S Mcdonald
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal struck out Mr S Mcdonald's claim against XDP Logistics (Steven) under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the basis that the claim had not been actively pursued. The tribunal recorded that, from 10 February 2025 onwards, it repeatedly wrote to the claimant asking him to provide an amended ET1 claim form so the claim could be re-served on another respondent, and later confirmed that he could reply by email or through the CitizenUi portal.
The tribunal found that although the claimant indicated he wished to amend the claim to change the respondent's name, he did not provide the amended ET1. Despite further reminders on 18 February, 27 February, 18 March, 27 March, 24 April and 12 May 2025, and a telephone call from administrative staff on 9 April 2025 explaining what was required, no amended claim form was supplied. The tribunal noted that the claimant was given an opportunity to give written reasons or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out, but he did not do so.
The judgment therefore records a strike out of the claim with no monetary award made. The underlying substantive claim type is not stated in the reasons, but the case was listed on gov.uk as an unlawful deduction from wages matter.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not identify the substantive cause of action, but the gov.uk listing for this case identifies the claim as unlawful deduction from wages. The claim was struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it had not been actively pursued, after the claimant failed to provide an amended ET1 needed to re-serve the claim on a new respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 38(1)(d)
- not actively pursued
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.