Case 4103553/2018 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103553/2018 & Others as per attached schedule Miss E Booth v Cordia Services LLP — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103553/2018
- Decision date
- 21 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103553/2018 & Others as per attached schedule Miss E Booth
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.
The claimant's solicitors had withdrawn from acting, and the Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 25 May 2023 seeking confirmation of her intentions. That correspondence was returned because the claimant no longer lived at the address provided on the ET1, and she had not notified the Tribunal of a new address.
The Tribunal stated that, without a current address, it could not communicate with the claimant or give notice under rule 37(2). It assumed in those circumstances that she no longer wished to pursue the claims and struck them out under rule 37(1)(d).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The judgment identifies the claims only as claims struck out for not being actively pursued; the gov.uk listing category indicates Equal Pay Act. | 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.