Employment Claims Struck Out for Inactive Pursuit
📌 In brief
Three employment claims were struck out by the Employment Tribunal because the claimants did not provide written reasons or request a hearing within the specified timeframe, as required by the rules.
⚖️ Legal holding
Failure to actively pursue a claim can result in its dismissal.
📖 Technical summary
Claims were struck out due to lack of active pursuit.
📜 Headnote Official document
This Employment Tribunal struck out three claims due to the claimants' failure to actively pursue them as required by Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
📚 Full judgment Official document
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Numbers: 4112967/2019, 4112978/2019 & 4112957/2019 [NAME_1] Claimant In Person [NAME_2] [NAME_3] Claimant In Person Claimant In Person Respondents Represented by: [NAME_4], Solicitor [NAME_5]
JUDGMENT These claims are struck out under Rule 37 of the Rules contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the grounds that the claims have not been actively pursued in terms of Rule 37(1)(d).
REASONS 1. On 9 August 2023 the Tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to give written reasons by 16 & 17 August 2023 or to request a hearing in order to consider why these claims should not be struck out.
2. The claimants have failed to give an acceptable reason why such a judgment should not be made or to request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore strikes out these claims. Employment Judge: [NAME_6] Date of Judgment: 23 August 2023 Entered in register: 24 August 2023 and copied to parties
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Employment Tribunal struck out the claims because the claimants did not actively pursue them.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimants had sufficiently pursued their claims according to the rules.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to strike out the claims because the claimants failed to provide written reasons or request a hearing as instructed.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was the claimants' failure to comply with the requirement to actively pursue their claims.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the claimants.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they comply with all procedural requirements to avoid having their claims struck out.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that were considered.