Case 1804850/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A De Carvalho v Primark Stores Limited AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2023
- Case reference
- 1804850/2022
- Decision date
- 27 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A De Carvalho
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Lancaster on 17 April 2023, heard at Leeds by Cloud Video Platform. The Tribunal did not determine the substantive claim. The Respondent (Primark Stores Limited) applied for costs in respect of the hearing on the basis that the Claimant had not complied with earlier written directions given by Employment Judge Elliott, with the result that the issues intended to be determined could not be dealt with and a further preliminary hearing would be required.
The Judge found that the Claimant was culpably in breach of Judge Elliott's orders and that the conditions for exercising the discretion to award costs under rule 76(2) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 were satisfied. The Judge noted that the Claimant appeared genuinely but wrongly to think she had done what was asked of her.
Having regard to the Claimant's ability to pay, the Judge declined to award the Respondent's claimed legal costs of £3,000.00 plus VAT (itself said to be only part of the costs incurred) and instead ordered the Claimant to pay a contribution of £50.00 towards the Respondent's costs of the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment is a costs order made at a preliminary hearing under rule 76(2) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. It does not adjudicate the underlying claim(s). The Claimant was ordered to pay £50.00 towards the Respondent's costs of the hearing. The substantive claim (per gov.uk listing, race discrimination) was not determined in this document. | Other | — | £50 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £50
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 76(2) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.