Case 8002499/2025 · Employment Tribunal
K Paterson v Conservatory Renovation Company Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002499/2025
- Decision date
- 6 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Kearns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
K Paterson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that it wrote to the claimant on 20 November 2025 seeking further specification of the claim so that a judgment could be issued under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. No reply was received.
Further letters were sent on 16 December 2025 and 7 January 2026 reminding the claimant to respond. The tribunal also wrote on 20 January 2026 giving the claimant until 3 February 2026 to provide written reasons or request a hearing to address why the claim should not be struck out for lack of active pursuit. No reply was received to any of those communications.
On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the grounds that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not record any substantive determination of liability or any monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not specify the underlying cause(s) of action; it records only that the claim was struck out for not being actively pursued under rule 38(1)(d). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38(1)(d) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 22 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.