Case 4100538/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4100538/2022 K Stanway v Glasgow City Council Cordia Services LLP Culture and Sport Glasgow — 2022
- Case reference
- 4100538/2022
- Decision date
- 12 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4100538/2022 K Stanway
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's case under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that the claimant's solicitors had withdrawn, a letter was sent to the claimant on 3 August 2022 asking her to confirm how she wished to proceed, and the correspondence was returned because she no longer lived at the address shown on the ET1.
The claimant had not notified the tribunal of any new address, so the tribunal could not communicate with her or give the notice required by rule 37(2). In those circumstances, the tribunal assumed she no longer wished to pursue the claim and struck it out. No substantive equal pay findings or remedy were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because the claim had not been actively pursued. The tribunal was unable to give rule 37(2) notice after correspondence sent on 3 August 2022 was returned and the claimant had not updated her address. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(2) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.