Case 4111266/2012 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Fisher v Represented by: Unrepresented West Lothian Council — 2018
- Case reference
- 4111266/2012
- Decision date
- 27 February 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laura Doherty
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Fisher
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 27 February 2018 Employment Judge Laura Doherty struck out Miss A Fisher's claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because it had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). The order records that the respondent was West Lothian Council, represented by Clyde and Co LLP, and that the claimant was unrepresented.
The tribunal's reasons state that at a hearing on 12 January 2018 the claimant was given an opportunity to provide written reasons by 19 January 2018 or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim. No substantive liability finding or remedy assessment is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The extracted judgment does not identify the substantive claim in the reasons section; Layer 1 metadata indicates an Equal Pay Act listing, so this is classified as equal_pay. The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.