Case 1400331/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Harrison (Solicitor) v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400331/2021
- Decision date
- 21 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Miss Harrison (Solicitor)
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Smail sitting at Exeter by video on 21 January 2022. The tribunal set aside the striking out of the response for failure to comply with an Unless Order. It also directed that the full merits hearing would proceed before a full panel by video starting on 24 January 2022.
The tribunal made case management orders requiring the respondent to add the first version of the minutes of the meeting dated 7 July 2020 to the bundle, serve an electronic version of the bundle, the schedule of loss and the witness statements by 2pm on 21 January 2022, and produce specified unredacted or metadata-accessible documents concerning the redundancy process by 9.30am on 24 January 2022. It also required Mr Stewart Williams to explain, in a witness statement supported by a statement of truth, any inability to produce documents.
The only monetary order recorded in the judgment was that the Second Respondent, Markel Law LLP, pay £1,500 plus VAT wasted costs to the claimant's solicitors within 14 days. The judgment does not determine the substantive employment tribunal claims on their merits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This is a preliminary hearing order, not a merits determination. The tribunal set aside the striking out of the response for failure to comply with an Unless Order and ordered the Second Respondent, Markel Law LLP, to pay £1,500 plus VAT wasted costs to the claimant's solicitors. The substantive claims were not decided in this judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,500
- across all upheld claims
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.