Case 4118210/2018 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4118210/2018 & 4118101/2018 Mrs H McMahon v Cordia Services LLP — 2023
- Case reference
- 4118210/2018
- Decision date
- 5 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4118210/2018 & 4118101/2018 Mrs H McMahon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claims under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules on the ground that they had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d).
The reasons recorded were that the claimant's solicitors had withdrawn, the claimant had not replied to a status enquiry asking her to confirm her intentions regarding the claims, and a strike out warning letter sent on 15 June 2023 was returned because the claimant no longer lived at the address provided on the ET1.
The Tribunal noted that the claimant had not provided a new address, leaving it unable to communicate with her or give notice under rule 37(2). It assumed in those circumstances that she no longer wished to pursue the claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The judgment refers only to 'claims' and strikes them out for not being actively pursued. The equal pay classification is based on the listing category and claim-type hint rather than a detailed description in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37
- rule 37(1)(d)
- rule 37(2)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.