Cases108026/2005

Claimant v Glasgow City Council

6 January 2025Before Employment Judge F EcclesScotlandon papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Otherstruck out

Claim struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for non-pursuit. Claimant's solicitors withdrew, claimant failed to respond to tribunal correspondence, moved address without informing tribunal, and tribunal assumed she no longer wished to pursue the claim.

Facts

The claimant brought a claim against Glasgow City Council. Her solicitors withdrew from acting. The tribunal sent correspondence on 25 July 2024 to confirm her intention to proceed, but this was returned as the claimant no longer lived at the address on the ET1. The claimant failed to inform the tribunal of her new address and took no steps to progress her claim.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) on the grounds of non-pursuit. The tribunal was unable to communicate with the claimant due to lack of current address and assumed she no longer wished to pursue the claim.

Practical note

Claimants must keep the tribunal informed of their current address and actively pursue their claims, or risk strike-out even without a formal hearing.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1, rule 37(1)(d)Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1, rule 37(2)

Case details

Case number
108026/2005
Decision date
6 January 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Name
Glasgow City Council
Sector
local government
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No