Case 2204212/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C O’Hare v Warehouse Fashions Limited and 2 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204212/2020
- Decision date
- 19 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Date
Parties
4 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned the first respondent's application to reconsider a judgment dated 14 January 2022, which had granted the claimant a protective award against the first respondent under rule 21. The first respondent had not contested that claim on the basis that the claimant worked at Oliver's Yard in London.
The first respondent applied for reconsideration after identifying that the claimant had in fact worked at Victoria Square in Belfast. The claimant's solicitor confirmed that the claimant worked in Belfast, and the tribunal found that the earlier concession had been based on an administrative error.
The tribunal held that it was in the interests of justice to revoke the judgment against the first respondent in respect of Ms O'Hare. The protective award claim was to be decided at a future hearing. The claim against the second respondent remained dismissed on withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for a protective award. The earlier judgment against the first respondent was revoked on reconsideration and the protective award claim was to be decided at a later hearing. The claim against the second respondent remained dismissed on withdrawal. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 71 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 70
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.