Mr G Frew v My Easy Park Glasgow Ltd: 4113774/2021
JUDGMENT
Case No: 4113774/2021REASONS
and Rules of Procedure) Regulations Judge Ian McPherson of unfair dismissal, sought a redundancy in Schedule Respondents Claimant 2013 on the 1 of the[9]On 26 April 2022, and again on 18 May 2022, the Tribunal gave the claimant an to the claim had been received, and it was therefore possible to issue a judgment without a Hearing, but as 3. Some information was provided by the claimant on 7 February 2022. Thereafter, on 16 for those amounts. He had not included any amount for unfair dismissal, and it was not clear within 14 days. No reply was received, and a reminder was issued by a Legal Officer, on 11 March 2022, for reply by 18 March 2022. The claimant provided a part reply on 20 an unfair dismissal award, and holiday pay. However, his reply still did not provide all of the information required by the as regards any claim for unfair dismissal, and further notice, unless the claimant requested to be heard at a Final Hearing. He was 8. No reply was received from the claimant, within 10 days, or at all, and a reminder was and on 4 February 2022, there was insufficient information to issue a judgment at that stage, the Judge required redundancy pay, notice pay and holiday pay, he had not shown how he had calculated was awaited on the other matters raised in the Tribunal’s matters by 30 March 2022. He failed to do so, and a final reminder was issued by a Legal Officer, on 13 April 2022, for reply by 20 April 2022. On 14 April 2022, the claimant on 26 April 2022, the Judge required the claimant to provide further information within 1 0 days. It was not possible to issue a Rule 21 default judgment that required to be resolved, before any Judge could consider 7. In that letter of 26 April 2022, the claimant was advised that he had not clarified matters, that any further failure to do so would be taken by the Judge to be a failure to actively claim, under Rule 37, without February 2022, the Tribunal wrote again to the claimant, advising that the information the Judge required the claimant to provide further information 5. Accordingly, on 23 March 2022, the claimant was asked to reply on the outstanding then available, where that information pursue any such head of claim, and failure to comply with Tribunal orders and directions, opportunity to give written reasons or to request a Hearing in order to consider why the amounts he had provided issued by the Tribunal, on 18 May 2022, for reply by 28 May 2022. response 2. No ET response was presented on behalf of the respondents, it. the claimant to provide further information within 1 4 days. if he was insisting upon that head of claim, or withdrawing and entitle the Judge to strike out his unfair dismissal provided a reply about his redundancy pay calculation, and where Judge noted that no acceptable in the claimant’s favour, based on the information issuing any judgment in the claimant’s favour. still insufficient, nor provided any further documentation, asked to clarify and confirm his position. of 16 February 2022. Tribunal on 16 February 2022. March 2022, but clarification contained inconsistencies by him was 4. In those circumstances, 6. In those circumstances, 4113774/2021 an Employment correspondence provided[10]Despite these opportunities struck out. 28 May 2022 or to request a Hearing in order to consider why the claim should not be 2022, when the Tribunal gave the claimant a further opportunity to give written reasons by claim should not be struck out. He failed to do so, despite the reminder given on 18 May has not complied with an order of the Tribunal. separate ground for strike out in terms of rule 37(1 ) (c), on the basis that the claimant has not been actively pursued by the claimant in terms of rule 37(1 )(d), and, being a a Hearing. The Tribunal therefore strikes out the claim, on the grounds that the claim give any acceptable reason why such a judgment should not now be made or to request 4113774/2021 afforded to the claimant by the Tribunal, he has failed to