Mr K Ligertwood and others v Shearings Hotels Ltd (in Administration): 4104508/2020 and others
JUDGMENT
[1]BY CONSENT The judgment of the Employment Tribunal under rule 64 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 is that: ft is declared that the respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 and section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Under reference to section 189(1)(a) of the 1992 Act, the Employment Tribunal makes a protective award in favour of the former employees of the respondent who are named in the attached schedule, and the respondent is ordered to pay remuneration to those employees for the protected period of 60 days starting on 22 May 2020. First name Keiran Adrienn Arpad Gabor JanosGaibor Ignacio Jose Sonia Marcin Mandy Lucie Catherine Artur Kirsten David Marius Mark Jared Ashika Alia rd Alejandro Marina Last name Ligertwood Berci Bondor Bondor Garcia Gomez Gawalska Gawalski Hadley Holisova Holt Kaminski MacLennan Manga Martin McLean Ochiba Rodriguez Guerrero Tkacenko Employment Judge: Peter O'Donnell Date of Judgment: 10 May 2021 Entered in register: 19 May 2021 and copied to parties[2]EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104508/2020 Employment Judge G I McPherson Mr K Ligertwood Claimant Shearings Hotels Limited (In Administration) Respondent[4]The claim is 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 claim has not been actively pursued in terms of rule 37(1REASONS
On 15 September 2022 the Tribunal wrote to the claimant asking them to confirm whether they wished to withdraw their claim following their correspondence dated 07 September 2022. No reply was received from the claimant.[2]On 10 October 2022 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to give written reasons by 24 October 2022 or to request a hearing in order to consider why the claim should not be struck out. No reply was received from the claimant.[3]The claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason why such a judgment should not be made or to request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore strikes out the claim.