Case 4104249/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Case Number: 4104249/2019 Mrs A Semple v Glasgow City Council Cordia (Services) LLP — 2025
- Case reference
- 4104249/2019
- Decision date
- 19 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Case Number: 4104249/2019 Mrs A Semple
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 of the Rules contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2024, on the ground that it had not been actively pursued in terms of rule 38(1)(d).
The reasons state that the claimant's solicitors had withdrawn and that a strike out warning letter was sent after the claimant failed to respond to a status enquiry asking her to confirm her intention regarding the claim. The correspondence was returned indicating that the claimant no longer lived at the ET1 address, and she had not provided 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) of the 2013 Rules. It assumed in those circumstances that the claimant no longer wished to pursue the claim and struck it out under rule 37(1)(d) of the 2013 Rules.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The judgment identifies only 'the claim' and strikes it out for not being actively pursued; the equal pay classification is based on the listing category and case context rather than express wording in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 38(1)(d) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2024
- rule 37(2) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(1)(d) 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.