Case 4108356/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Case Number: 4108356/2018 & 4115956/2018 Ms D Richmond v Cordia Services LLP Glasgow City Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 4108356/2018
- Decision date
- 28 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Case Number: 4108356/2018 & 4115956/2018 Ms D Richmond
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 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The claimant's solicitors had withdrawn from acting. A strike out warning letter was sent on 21 February 2025 after the claimant failed to reply to a status enquiry asking her to confirm her intention regarding the claim. That correspondence was returned because the claimant no longer resided at the address provided on the ET1.
The claimant had not taken steps to give the Tribunal her new address. The Tribunal stated that it could not communicate with her and had been unable to give notice under rule 38(2). It assumed in those circumstances 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 gov.uk listing category identifies the case as Equal Pay Act. The judgment itself states only that the claim was struck out under rule 38 because it had not been actively pursued; it does not set out the substantive equal pay issues. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2024
- rule 38(2) of the 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.