Cases4110327/2014

Claimant v Tayside Contracts

29 January 2025Before Employment Judge Lucy WisemanScotlandon papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Otherstruck out

Claim struck out under rule 38(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue. Claimant failed to respond to tribunal's opportunity dated 10 December 2024 to provide reasons by 24 December 2024 or request a hearing to show why claim should not be struck out.

Facts

The claimant brought an employment claim in 2014 against Tayside Contracts. On 10 December 2024, the tribunal issued an unless order giving the claimant until 24 December 2024 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing. The claimant failed to respond or provide any acceptable reason.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(d) on the grounds that it had not been actively pursued. The claimant had been given a clear opportunity to explain why the claim should continue but failed to engage with the tribunal process.

Practical note

A claimant who fails to respond to a tribunal's unless order risks automatic strike-out for non-pursuit, even in long-running cases.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2024 Schedule 1 Rule 38Rule 38(1)(d)

Case details

Case number
4110327/2014
Decision date
29 January 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
public sector
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No