Case 2303965/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Christopher Burnham v Day Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303965/2018
- Decision date
- 1 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Apted Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Christopher Burnham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London South Employment Tribunal sitting at Croydon on 1 April 2022, Employment Judge Apted considered the claimant Christopher Burnham's application under rule 38(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, as amended, to set aside the earlier dismissal of his claim for non-compliance with an Unless Order made by Employment Judge Siddall on 21 October 2010.
The tribunal refused the application. The judgment states that it was not in the interests of justice to set aside the dismissal. No substantive liability issues were determined in this decision, and no remedy was awarded.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The decision therefore records only the refusal of the rule 38(2) application and not any underlying merits of the original claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application under rule 38(2) to set aside the dismissal of the claim for non-compliance with the Unless Order made by Employment Judge Siddall on 21 October 2010; refused because it was not in the interests of justice to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38(2) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- interests of justice
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.