Case 2302775/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs F Jarrett v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302775/2018
- Decision date
- 15 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs F Jarrett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent applied for reconsideration of a judgment sent to the parties on 15 January 2019. The Tribunal granted the reconsideration application, granted the respondent's application for an extension of time dated 14 November 2018, and accepted the respondent's ET3.
The Tribunal recorded that the ET3 deadline had been 25 October 2018 and that the respondent had applied for an extension on 14 November 2018. The respondent had also referred to the outstanding extension application in later case management correspondence and provided a draft ET3 on 4 January 2019.
The Tribunal found that the earlier rejection of the ET3 had been based on incomplete information and erroneous grounds, including that the Employment Judge had not been aware of the reasons given for the extension request or the case management correspondence. Having reviewed all the facts, the Tribunal accepted that the respondent's stated lack of awareness of the claim was a valid reason for seeking the extension.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment concerns the respondent's reconsideration application, extension of time application and acceptance of the ET3. It does not determine the substantive unfair dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 19 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 26 referral
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.