Case 8002223/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 8002223/2024 E Robertson v Chalmers West Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8002223/2024
- Decision date
- 21 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wiseman Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 8002223/2024 E Robertson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 17 March 2025, the claimant was ordered to provide further and better particulars of her claims within 28 days. She did not comply, and a reminder sent on 9 May 2025 also received no response. A further preliminary hearing took place on 28 May 2025, which the claimant did not attend.
After that hearing the claimant emailed saying she was unable to attend because of ill health, and the Employment Judge directed her to provide GP documentary evidence confirming the nature of the ill health and that she had been unable to attend the hearing, within 7 days. That evidence was not provided, despite a further reminder on 30 June 2025. A strike out warning issued on 11 July 2025 also went unanswered, and the 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 was sent to the parties on 21 August 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying pleaded causes of action. It records a strike out of the claim under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 38(1)(d) 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.