Case 2406249/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Gillett v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs — 2019
- Case reference
- 2406249/2019
- Decision date
- 8 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Whittaker REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Gillett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered the respondent's application for an extension of time to file its response. The respondent had not filed a response within the original time limit, and a response with an application to extend time was lodged on 10 September 2019.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had not provided satisfactory evidence about its mail recording system or a satisfactory explanation for a further seven-day delay after solicitors became involved. It nevertheless took into account that the claimant's claims required significant clarification, including issues about whether the claimant and/or Mr McKenna was disabled, and that the respondent denied the claims.
Balancing the relevant factors, including prejudice and the overriding objective, the Tribunal decided it was just and equitable to extend time. The response filed by the respondent was accepted and acknowledged; the merits of the claimant's claims were not determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment did not determine the merits of the disability-related claims. It accepted the respondent's late response and granted an extension of time under Rule 20. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 20 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- overriding objective
- Rule 18 of the Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
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.