Case 4105477/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Case Number: 4105477/2018 Ms J Buchanan v Cordia Services LLP Glasgow City Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 4105477/2018
- Decision date
- 28 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Case Number: 4105477/2018 Ms J Buchanan
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 The judgment records that the claimant's solicitors had withdrawn and that a strike out warning letter was sent after the claimant failed to reply to a Tribunal status enquiry about whether she intended to continue the claim.
The correspondence was returned to the Tribunal Office because the claimant no longer resided at the address provided on the ET1. The claimant had not provided a new address, leaving the Tribunal unable to communicate with her or give notice under rule 38(2). In those circumstances, the Tribunal assumed she no longer wished to pursue the claim and struck it out under rule 38(1)(d).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The judgment identifies the claim only by the gov.uk Equal Pay Act listing context and records that it was struck out for not being actively pursued; it does not determine the merits of the equal pay claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 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
- rule 38 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.