Case 4108586/2014 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4108586/2014 Mr J D Cunningham v The City of Edinburgh Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 4108586/2014
- Decision date
- 20 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4108586/2014 Mr J D Cunningham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, on the ground that the claim had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d).
The Tribunal had given the claimant an opportunity on 26 January 2023 to provide written reasons by 9 February 2023, or to request a hearing, to address why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why strike-out should not be ordered and did not request a hearing, so the Tribunal struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The gov.uk listing categories indicate Unlawful Deduction from Wages and Working Time Regulations, but the judgment text itself does not separately identify the claim particulars. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The gov.uk listing categories indicate Unlawful Deduction from Wages and Working Time Regulations, but the judgment text itself does not separately identify the claim particulars. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(1)(d)
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.