Case 4116694/2014 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Logan v East Renfrewshire Council — 2020
- Case reference
- 4116694/2014
- Decision date
- 9 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Logan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of Schedule 1 to 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 tribunal recorded that on 22 October 2019 the claimant was given until 5 November 2019 to provide written reasons, or to request a hearing, to address why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing, so the claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing categories identify unlawful deduction from wages and working time, but the judgment itself refers only to 'the claim' being struck out under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing categories identify unlawful deduction from wages and working time, but the judgment itself refers only to 'the claim' being struck out under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of the Rules contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(1)(d)
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.