Case 1600430/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Kealaher v Wilko Retail Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600430/2021
- Decision date
- 17 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Kealaher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal reconsidered, on its own initiative and without a hearing, the judgment dated 22 October 2021 that had struck out the claimant’s claim. Employment Judge Moore revoked that strike-out judgment.
The tribunal found that the claimant had a history of non-compliance with case management orders, which may have caused the respondent unnecessary time and expense. However, the claimant had in fact sent a letter dated 20 October 2021 explaining why the claim should not be struck out, and that material was not matched with the file before the strike-out judgment was issued. The tribunal also took account of the claimant’s health explanation, including hospital admission and continuing symptoms.
Applying the overriding objective and considering whether a fair hearing remained possible, the tribunal concluded that a fair hearing could still take place and that strike-out would be disproportionate. On that basis, the earlier strike-out judgment was revoked.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | This judgment did not determine the substantive unfair dismissal claim. It revoked an earlier strike-out judgment after reconsideration, so the claim remained live. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 73 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 2 overriding objective
- Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage 2004 ICR 371, EAT
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.