Case 4100892/2012 · Employment Tribunal
Ms MM Paterson v Unrepresented: West Lothian Council — 2017
- Case reference
- 4100892/2012
- Decision date
- 11 October 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laura Doherty
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms MM Paterson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an equal pay case brought by Ms MM Paterson against West Lothian Council. On 19 September 2017 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 26 September 2017, or to request a hearing, to explain why the claim should not be struck out.
The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why a strike-out judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore held that the claim had not been actively pursued and struck it out under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The judgment records no determination of the underlying equal pay issues and no monetary award. It is a procedural disposal only, dated 11 October 2017.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | Struck out under rule 37 on the ground that the claim had not been actively pursued; no substantive merits determination was made. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d)
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.