Case 4112954/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Lloyd v City Of Glasgow College — 2025
- Case reference
- 4112954/2015
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Lloyd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge L Wiseman struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment records that correspondence sent to the claimant at the address provided was returned marked "gone away" and that no new address had been supplied.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant's previous agents had withdrawn from acting for him and did not hold any address for him other than the one in the claim form. In those circumstances, the judge concluded that the claim did not appear to be actively pursued and ordered that it be struck out.
The judgment does not record a merits hearing, liability findings, or any monetary award. It is a procedural disposal only, dated 7 January 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not specify the substantive underlying claim(s); it records only that the claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) ET Rules of Procedure 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.