Claimant v Tayside Contracts
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue. Correspondence to the claimant at the address provided was returned marked 'gone away', no new address was provided, and the claimant's previous agents withdrew from acting with no alternative address available.
Facts
Mr Hope brought a claim against Tayside Contracts in 2014. He had previously been represented by solicitors who subsequently withdrew from acting. Correspondence sent to the address provided on the claim form was returned marked 'gone away'. The claimant provided no new contact details and his former representatives held no alternative address for him.
Decision
Employment Judge Wiseman struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The tribunal was unable to contact the claimant at his stated address and no alternative contact details had been provided following his solicitors' withdrawal.
Practical note
Claimants must maintain active contact with the tribunal and provide updated addresses; failure to do so may result in strike-out for non-pursuit even where they were previously represented.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4110373/2014
- Decision date
- 6 November 2024
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No