Case 4112950/2015 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4112950/2015 Mr R Rutherford v City Of Glasgow College — 2024
- Case reference
- 4112950/2015
- Decision date
- 22 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4112950/2015 Mr R Rutherford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal for Scotland struck out Mr R Rutherford's claim against City of Glasgow College under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The tribunal relied on rule 37(1)(d), finding that the claim had not been actively pursued.
In the reasons, Employment Judge L Wiseman recorded that correspondence sent to the claimant at the address provided had been returned marked 'gone away'. No new address had been provided. The claimant's previous agents had withdrawn from acting and did not hold any other address for him beyond the address in the claim form.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claim did not appear to be actively pursued and ordered that it be struck out. The judgment does not record any substantive determination of liability, nor does it record any financial award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify a substantive claim type in the extracted text; it says only that 'the claim' was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d)
- not actively pursued
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.