Case 4101240/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 4101240/2022 Ms A Gardiner v Tayside Contracts Dundee City Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 4101240/2022
- Decision date
- 13 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Kemp Case
- Panel members
- Ms D Miller, Mr S Miller
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 4101240/2022 Ms A Gardiner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Ms A Gardiner's claim in case 4101240/2022 under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that the tribunal wrote to the claimant on 25 September 2025 and gave her an opportunity to provide written reasons by 9 October 2025, or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not respond to that letter and had also not responded to earlier correspondence about the claim. On that basis, it concluded that the claim had not been actively pursued within rule 38(1)(d) and therefore ordered strike-out. No remedy was awarded and no substantive liability findings were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it had not been actively pursued within rule 38(1)(d); the claimant did not respond to the tribunal's letter dated 25 September 2025 and did not request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 38(1)(d)
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.