Case 4104514/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4104514/2019 & Others as per attached schedule Mrs J Healy v Glasgow City Council Cordia Services LLP — 2023
- Case reference
- 4104514/2019
- Decision date
- 7 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4104514/2019 & Others as per attached schedule Mrs J Healy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claims under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that they had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment does not determine the merits of the underlying equal pay or working time claims.
On 12 June 2023 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 3 July 2023, or to request a hearing so the tribunal could consider why the claims should not be struck out. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claims. Judgment was given by Employment Judge Frances Eccles on 7 July 2023.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | Struck out under rule 37 because the claims had not been actively pursued; merits were not determined. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Struck out under rule 37 because the claims had not been actively pursued; merits were not determined. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 ET Rules 2013
- rule 37(1)(d) ET Rules 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.