Case 4112946/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 4112946/2015 Mrs M Hogg v City Of Glasgow College — 2024
- Case reference
- 4112946/2015
- Decision date
- 2 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wisemen Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 4112946/2015 Mrs M Hogg
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mrs M Hogg's claim against City Of Glasgow College under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). The reasons recorded that correspondence sent to the claimant at the address provided had been returned marked 'gone away', no new address had been provided, and the claimant's previous agents had withdrawn from acting. The tribunal said that in those circumstances it appeared the claim was not being actively pursued and it was therefore struck out.
No substantive liability findings or remedy were recorded. The judgment does not identify any award, and the only issue determined was the procedural strike-out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive heads of claim in the extracted text. The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) ET Rules 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.