Case 4108693/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Case Number: 4108693/2018 & 4104202/2017 Mr L Walker v Cordia Services LLP Glasgow City Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 4108693/2018
- Decision date
- 17 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Case Number: 4108693/2018 & 4104202/2017 Mr L Walker
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 because it had not been actively pursued in terms of rule 37(1)(d).
The claimant's solicitors had withdrawn from acting. A strike out warning letter was sent after the claimant did not respond to a Tribunal status enquiry about whether he intended to continue with the claim, but correspondence was returned because he no longer lived at the address provided on the ET1.
The claimant had not given the Tribunal a new address, so the Tribunal could not communicate with him or give notice under rule 38(2). The Tribunal assumed that he no longer wished to pursue the claim and struck it out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 38 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). The judgment text itself does not set out the underlying equal pay issues. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2024
- rule 37(1)(d) 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.