Case 4102811/2014 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Donaldson v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 4102811/2014
- Decision date
- 13 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs L Donaldson
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Frances Eccles struck out Mrs L Donaldson's claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment records that on 15 January 2019 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 22 January 2019 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 should not be made and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claim should be struck out. The extracted judgment does not record any substantive liability determination on the underlying claim, only the procedural strike-out decision.
No monetary award was made. The judgment contains no split of any remedy components and no separate award figures.
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 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). The extracted judgment does not set out any substantive equal pay findings. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d)
- rule 37 of the 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.