Case 4108813/2014 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4108813/2014 Mr C Walker v The City of Edinburgh Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 4108813/2014
- Decision date
- 16 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4108813/2014 Mr C Walker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Lucy Wiseman struck out the claimant's case under rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment states that the claim had not been actively pursued within the meaning of rule 37(1)(d).
The tribunal's reasons were that correspondence sent to the claimant at the address he had provided was returned marked "gone away", no new address had been provided, and the claimant's previous agents had withdrawn from acting for him. Those agents did not hold any address for him other than the one stated in the claim form. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claim was not being actively pursued and struck it out.
The judgment does not determine the substantive merits of the underlying claims and records no financial remedy or other award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not identify the underlying cause of action in its reasons. This claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing categories provided in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not identify the underlying cause of action in its reasons. This claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing categories provided in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of Schedule 1 to 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.