Case 4117080/2014 · Employment Tribunal

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4117080/2014 Ms F Nothard v The City of Edinburgh Council — 2023

Case reference: 4117080/2014
Decision date: 24 February 2023
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4117080/2014 Ms F Nothard

Respondent

The City of Edinburgh Council

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal 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, specifically rule 37(1)(d).

The Tribunal had given the claimant an opportunity on 27 January 2023 to provide written reasons by 10 February 2023 or to request a hearing to consider why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why such a judgment should not be made and did not request a hearing.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The specific claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category; the judgment text itself does not describe the underlying wage complaint.	Struck out	—	—
Working time regulations	The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The specific claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category; the judgment text itself does not describe the underlying Working Time Regulations complaint.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 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.