Case 4111338/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Case Number: 4111338/2018 Ms J Cooperwhite v Cordia Services LLP Glasgow City Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 4111338/2018
- Decision date
- 28 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Case Number: 4111338/2018 Ms J Cooperwhite
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2024, on the ground that it had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d).
The claimant's solicitors had withdrawn from acting. After the claimant did not respond to a status enquiry about whether she intended to continue the claim, a strike out warning letter was sent on 19 February 2025. That correspondence was returned because the claimant no longer lived at the address provided on the ET1.
The Tribunal recorded that the claimant had not provided a new address, so it could not communicate with her or give notice under rule 38(2). It therefore assumed 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 judgment identifies the claim only generally and strikes it out for not being actively pursued. The equal pay classification is supported by the listing category rather than detailed reasoning in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 38 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2024
- rule 37(1)(d) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2024
- rule 38(2) of Schedule 1 to 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.