Case 4111187/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 4111187/2018,4113758/2018 & 4111778/2018 Miss K Baxter v Cordia Services LLP Glasgow City Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 4111187/2018
- Decision date
- 19 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Eccles Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 4111187/2018,4113758/2018 & 4111778/2018 Miss K Baxter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2024.
The claimant's solicitors had withdrawn, and the claimant did not respond to the Tribunal's status enquiry asking her to confirm her intentions. Correspondence sent to the address on the ET1 was returned indicating that she no longer lived there, and she had not provided a new address, so the Tribunal could not communicate with her or give notice under rule 38(2).
In those circumstances, the Tribunal assumed that the claimant no longer wished to pursue the claim and struck it out. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The judgment does not set out the pleaded factual basis of the claim; classification as equal_pay follows the listed Equal Pay Act category, while the tribunal's decision was confined to strike out for failure to actively pursue. | 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.