Case 4111586/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Case Number: 4111586/2018 & 4114893/2018 Ms R Kennedy v Cordia Services LLP Glasgow City Council — 2025

Case reference: 4111586/2018
Decision date: 28 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge Frances Eccles

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Case Number: 4111586/2018 & 4114893/2018 Ms R Kennedy

Respondent

Cordia Services LLP Glasgow City Council

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal struck out the claims under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the ground that they had not been actively pursued.

The claimant's solicitors had withdrawn from acting. A strike out warning letter was sent after the claimant failed to respond to a status enquiry asking her to confirm her intention regarding the claims. That correspondence was returned because the claimant no longer lived at the address provided on the ET1, and she had not provided a new address.

The Tribunal stated that, without a current address, it could not communicate with the claimant and had been unable to give notice under rule 38(2). It assumed in those circumstances that she no longer wished to pursue the claims and struck them 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 states that the claims were struck out under rule 38 because they had not been actively pursued. The judgment text does not set out the detailed substance of the claims; the equal pay classification is consistent with the listed case category.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.