Case 8003179/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 8003179/2025 C Kilpatrick v Complete Cleaning Services Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 8003179/2025
- Decision date
- 4 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sutherland Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 8003179/2025 C Kilpatrick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued, in terms of rule 38(1)(d). The judgment records no determination of the merits of the unfair dismissal or unlawful deduction from wages complaints and no remedy award.
The reasons given were procedural. The Tribunal had issued an Order to the parties on 17 February, and the claimant failed to comply with that Order in its entirety. The claimant also did not respond to a Tribunal reminder dated 07 April 2026.
After the respondent applied for strike out on 22 April 2026, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity on 14 May 2026 to provide written reasons by 28 May 2026 or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing, so the Tribunal struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 38 for not being actively pursued; it did not determine the merits or record any remedy. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 38 for not being actively pursued; it did not determine the merits or record any remedy. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 38(1)(d)
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.