Case 4102004/2018 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4102004/2018 & Others as per attached schedule Ms A Thomson v Cordia Services LLP — 2023
- Case reference
- 4102004/2018
- Decision date
- 28 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4102004/2018 & Others as per attached schedule Ms A Thomson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claims under rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because they had not been actively pursued, specifically under rule 37(1)(d).
The reasons record that the claimant's solicitors had withdrawn from acting and that a letter sent on 25 May 2023 seeking confirmation of the claimant's intentions was returned because the claimant no longer lived at the ET1 address. The claimant had not provided a new address, so the Tribunal could not communicate with her or give notice under rule 37(2). It assumed she no longer wished to pursue the claims and struck them out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The judgment describes the claims collectively as struck out for not being actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). It does not set out the underlying equal pay issues in the extracted judgment text; the equal pay classification is based on the listing category and claim-type context supplied. | 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.