Case 2408480/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Kiernan v Asda Stores Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408480/2020
- Decision date
- 19 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Kiernan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Judge Brian Doyle in Manchester by video conference on 16 August 2022. The tribunal recorded that the claimant, Mr D Kiernan, had not complied by the specified date of 3 May 2022 with an unless order made on 11 April 2022 and sent to the parties on 19 April 2022.
As a result, the claim stood dismissed without further order under rule 38(1) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The written judgment was treated as notice to the parties confirming that position.
The tribunal noted that it did not have a written application under rule 38(2) to set aside the unless order, but it did consider an oral application for relief from sanctions at the hearing. It decided that it was not in the interests of justice to set the order aside or reinstate the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed without further order under rule 38(1) because the claimant did not comply by 3 May 2022 with the unless order made on 11 April 2022 and sent on 19 April 2022. The tribunal also said that, on the oral application for relief from sanctions made at the hearing, it was not in the interests of justice to set the order aside or reinstate the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38(1) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 38(2) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.