Case 4103518/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Case Number: 4103518/2018 Ms N Gentile Mathieson v Glasgow City Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 4103518/2018
- Decision date
- 27 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Case Number: 4103518/2018 Ms N Gentile Mathieson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that the claimant's solicitors had withdrawn and that a strike out warning letter followed the claimant's failure to respond to a status enquiry asking her to confirm her intentions regarding the claim.
The Tribunal said correspondence had been returned indicating that the claimant no longer lived at the address given on the ET1, and that she had not advised the Tribunal of a new address. In those circumstances the Tribunal could not communicate with her or give notice under rule 38(2), and assumed that she no longer wished to pursue the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The listing category indicates Equal Pay Act and the judgment refers only to 'the claim' being struck out for not being actively pursued; the judgment does not otherwise describe the substance of the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38(1)(d) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2024
- rule 38(2) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2024
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.