Case 4111356/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Case Number: 4111356/2018 Ms M Ross v Cordia Services LLP Glasgow City Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 4111356/2018
- Decision date
- 31 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Case Number: 4111356/2018 Ms M Ross
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The reasons record that the claimant's solicitors had withdrawn, and that a strike out warning letter was sent on 26 February 2025 after the claimant failed to respond to a status enquiry asking whether she intended to continue with the claim. The correspondence was returned because the claimant no longer lived at the address on the ET1, and she had not provided a new address.
The Tribunal stated that, because it could not communicate with the claimant or give notice under rule 38(2), it assumed she no longer wished to pursue the claim and struck it out under rule 38(1)(d).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The judgment identifies the claim only as "the claim" and strikes it out for not being actively pursued; the equal pay classification is based on the listed case category and Layer 1 context rather than detailed reasons in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 38(1)(d)
- rule 38(2)
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.