Case 4101729/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Hegarty & others (per attached schedule) v Cordia Services Lip — 2024
- Case reference
- 4101729/2017
- Decision date
- 15 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Hegarty & others (per attached schedule)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge M Whitcombe struck out the claims of Mr D Hegarty and 153 others against Cordia Services LLP under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, on the ground that the claims had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). The judgment date is 8 January 2024 and it was entered in the register on 15 January 2024.
The tribunal wrote on 27 October 2023 asking the claimants' representative to confirm that the claims had settled and were to be withdrawn. No reply was received. A reminder was sent on 1 November 2023 with a response due by 24 November 2023, and on 30 November 2023 the tribunal gave the claimants until 14 December 2023 to provide written reasons or request a hearing on why the claims should not be struck out. No reply was received to that further opportunity, and the tribunal found that the claimants had failed to give an acceptable reason or request a hearing. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Underlying claim type is not stated in the body of the judgment; classified from the case listing as an unlawful deduction from wages claim. The case was a multiple-claimant matter (Mr D Hegarty and 153 others per attached schedule). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(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.