Case 2301200/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Noon v Asda Stores Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301200/2024
- Decision date
- 12 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Wilson Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms R Noon
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied to strike out the respondents' response and/or to vary an earlier case management order accepting the response. The Tribunal considered the circumstances in which the respondents' response had been filed late, including the respondents' position that they had not received the claim form served by the Tribunal when the extension application was made.
The Tribunal was not satisfied that the respondents or their representatives had deliberately or recklessly misled the Tribunal. It found insufficient evidence that the claim form had been forwarded to Asda or Addleshaw Goddard at the material time, and considered it plausible that an error or oversight occurred in relation to earlier correspondence.
The Tribunal refused the strike-out application, finding that the conduct did not meet the required threshold for scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious conduct of proceedings and that a fair trial remained possible. It also refused the alternative request to set aside or vary the earlier order.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant brought a constructive unfair dismissal claim, but this procedural judgment did not determine the merits of that claim. | Other | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant brought discrimination claims because of sex and/or pregnancy and maternity, but this procedural judgment did not determine the merits of the sex discrimination claim. | Other | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant brought discrimination claims because of sex and/or pregnancy and maternity, but this procedural judgment did not determine the merits of the pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claimant brought an unlawful deduction from wages claim, but this procedural judgment did not determine the merits of that claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 21
- Rule 20
- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 39
- interests of justice
- material change in circumstances
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.