Case 4108874/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Case Number: 4108874/2019 Miss R Branney v Glasgow City Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 4108874/2019
- Decision date
- 28 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Case Number: 4108874/2019 Miss R Branney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued in terms of rule 38(1)(d).
The reasons record that the claimant's solicitors had withdrawn and that a strike out warning letter was sent on 26 February 2025 after the claimant failed to respond to a status enquiry asking her to confirm her intention regarding the claim. The correspondence was returned because the claimant no longer lived at the address provided on the ET1, and she had not given the tribunal a new address.
The tribunal stated that, without current contact details, it could not communicate with the claimant or give notice under rule 38(2). It assumed in those circumstances that she 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 listing category indicates Equal Pay Act. The judgment itself describes the claim only generally as "the claim" and records strike out for not being actively pursued under rule 38(1)(d). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 38 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- 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
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.