Case 2302247/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Bradford v Ocado Central Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302247/2021
- Decision date
- 30 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Bradford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent applied to strike out the claim on the basis of the Claimant's non-compliance with Tribunal orders requiring answers to a request for further and better particulars. The Tribunal found that there had been a failure to comply, as no further and better particulars had been received.
The Tribunal refused the strike out application. Applying the guidance in Abegaze, Employment Judge Reed considered that a fair trial remained possible, the delay caused by the default was relatively short, and strike out would not be a proportionate sanction.
The Judge indicated that any future strike out application based on non-compliance would be considered in light of the claim history, including this decision, and emphasised the importance of complying with Tribunal directions and cooperating in preparation for hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment refused the Respondent's application to strike out the claim under Rule 37(1)(c). The substantive claim type and merits were not determined in this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(c)
- Abegaze v Shrewsbury College of Arts & Technology [2010] IRLR 236
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.