Case 8002348/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 8002348/2025 Mr J Cirulis v Northdeko (Solo Trader Name) — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002348/2025
- Decision date
- 2 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Hendry Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 8002348/2025 Mr J Cirulis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal for Scotland, before Employment Judge J Hendry, struck out the claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The reason given was non-compliance with an order of the Tribunal and that the claim had not been actively pursued within rule 38(1)(d).
The Tribunal recorded that on 3 October 2025 it wrote to the claimant asking for information about why the claim had been lodged outwith the three-month time limit. No reply was received. Further reminders were sent on 25 November 2025, 10 December 2025, and 6 January 2026, but the claimant did not respond.
A strike-out warning letter was then issued on 19 January 2026, giving the claimant until 2 February 2026 to respond or explain why judgment should not be issued. The Tribunal found that the claimant failed to respond, did not give reasons why judgment should not be made, and did not request a hearing. The claim was therefore struck out. The judgment was sent to the parties on 5 February 2026.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment strikes out 'the claim' under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for non-compliance with an order of the Tribunal and because the claim had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not identify separate heads of claim in the decision text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 38(1)(d) 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.