Case 4102846/2020 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4102846/2020 Ms E Bowie v Cordia (Services) LLP Glasgow City Council Culture And Sport Glasgow (trading) C.i.c — 2022
- Case reference
- 4102846/2020
- Decision date
- 22 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4102846/2020 Ms E Bowie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal for Scotland struck out Ms E Bowie’s claim against Cordia (Services) LLP, Glasgow City Council, and Culture and Sport Glasgow (trading) C.I.C. The tribunal did so under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the ground that the claim had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d).
The reasons state that on 2 September 2022 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 16 September 2022, or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing.
On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim type or record any monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment says only that 'the claim' was struck out under rule 37 for not having been actively pursued. It does not identify the underlying legal cause of action, so this is classified as other. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- 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.