Case 4102450/2014 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4102450/2014 Ms K Cunningham v East Ayrshire Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 4102450/2014
- Decision date
- 13 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4102450/2014 Ms K Cunningham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claimant's solicitor withdrew from acting on 25 May 2023 and that the respondent had no settlement proposal. The respondent's position was that the claimant was earning more than her comparator during the relevant period of the equal pay claim.
After the claimant confirmed that she intended to proceed unrepresented, the Tribunal asked her to respond to the respondent's position on her comparator and to identify a comparator employed by the respondent. The claimant did not respond to several requests and reminders, later confirming that she was unable to provide the information required.
The Tribunal issued strike-out warnings on the basis that the claim had not been actively pursued. After no response was received to the final warning, the Employment Judge considered that strike-out was in accordance with the overriding objective and struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The judgment states that the claim was for equal pay and that it was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
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.