Case 2205326/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Merchelski v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2205326/2018
- Decision date
- 24 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Finlay
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Merchelski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the respondent's application for reconsideration of a Rule 21 default judgment dated 20 December 2018. The claim had been issued to the respondent's Holborn Viaduct address, but the respondent and its solicitors said they first became aware that the claim had been issued when Acas contacted Eversheds on 5 December 2018.
The tribunal accepted that the respondent could not say the claim form had not been received at the correct address and accepted that it should have received it. It also accepted evidence that the respondent's mailroom contractor operated a robust system for incoming mail, and found that the respondent acted in a timely manner once the claim was brought to its attention.
Applying the interests of justice test, the tribunal balanced the claimant's compliance with time limits against the prejudice to the respondent if it were deprived of defending the unfair dismissal claim and discrimination complaint. It found that the balance of prejudice was clearly in the respondent's favour and revoked the Rule 21 judgment, leaving the case to proceed to a fair trial.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment revoked the Rule 21 judgment dated 20 December 2018 and did not determine the unfair dismissal claim on its merits. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The gov.uk listing identifies disability discrimination, but the judgment text itself refers only to a discrimination complaint. The judgment revoked the Rule 21 judgment and did not determine the discrimination complaint on its merits. | Other | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The gov.uk listing identifies breach of contract, but this preliminary judgment does not discuss the claim in substance. The judgment revoked the Rule 21 judgment and did not determine this claim on its merits. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 70 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 interests of justice
- Kwik Save Stores Ltd v Swain [1997] ICR 49
- T and D Transport (Portsmouth) Limited v Limburn [1987] ICR 696
- Migwain Ltd v TGWU [1979] ICR 597
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.