Case 1804848/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Blenkinsop v Yellow Rose Lodge Ltd PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 1804848/2019
- Decision date
- 13 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Appearances
- Venue
- Hull
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Blenkinsop
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the public preliminary hearing on 13 March 2020, Employment Judge Shepherd granted the respondent's application for an extension of time to present its response. The tribunal accepted the response without the need for further service. The claim had been presented on 13 September 2019, notices were sent to the respondent's registered office, and when no response was received the tribunal wrote on 25 November 2019 indicating that judgment might be issued under rule 21.
The tribunal heard evidence from Tony Proudfoot, the respondent's managing director. He said that he first became aware of the claim on 26 November 2019 after checking the post at Holyrood House, and that a former manager may have received the earlier correspondence but not passed it on. The judge found that there was an arguable response and that, weighing the prejudice, it was in the interests of justice to allow the extension. The judge also noted issues in respect of disability, particularly knowledge, substantial effects and justification, but said it was not appropriate to speculate on the quality or availability of the evidence at that stage.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Respondent's application for an extension of time to present its response was granted and the response was accepted without the need for further service. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- interests of justice
- balance of prejudice
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.