Case 8002651/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Johnston v Nathan Jacob Javid McNaughton — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002651/2025
- Decision date
- 28 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Johnston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge P O’Donnell struck out Mr J Johnston's claim against Nathan Jacob Javid McNaughton under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that the claim was received on 3 November 2025, the notice of claim was sent on 5 November 2025, and the service papers were returned on 10 November 2025 marked "addressee gone away".
The Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 17 November 2025 asking for an alternative address for the respondent and set a reply date of 24 November 2025. A reminder was sent on 18 December 2025 requesting the same information, with a reply date of 29 December 2025, but no response was received. The Tribunal then gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no reply was received, so the claim was struck out for lack of active pursuit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying pleaded claims. It records only that the claim was struck out under rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The reasons section states that on 9 January 2025 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, and the deadline is given as 23 January 2025; those dates appear inconsistent with the surrounding 2025 chronology and the decision date of 28 January 2026. | 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.