Case 8002218/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 8002218/2025 K Gould v McQueens Dairies Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002218/2025
- Decision date
- 23 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 8002218/2025 K Gould
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal 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 set out the underlying substantive cause of action.
The case had been listed for a case management preliminary hearing before Employment Judge C McManus on 7 April 2026. The claimant did not attend, and a Tribunal clerk was unable to contact her using the telephone number provided in the ET1 form.
Following that hearing, the claimant was given a strike out warning and an opportunity to provide written reasons by 14 April 2026 or request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not reply. Employment Judge M Whitcombe concluded that the claimant had been given a reasonable opportunity to respond and a clear warning of the consequences, and that strike out was proportionate and consistent with the overriding objective. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type; it records only that the claim was struck out under rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective
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.