Case 2416702/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Kay v Asda Stores Limited — 2019

Case reference: 2416702/2018
Decision date: 21 February 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Nicol Representation
Venue: Carlisle

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Kay

Respondent

Asda Stores Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The respondent did not respond to the claim form within the prescribed time, did not seek an extension of time, and did not attend the preliminary hearing or provide an explanation for non-attendance. The Tribunal was satisfied that the claim form and notice of the preliminary hearing had been sent to an address at which the respondent was trading, and that part of the claim could properly be determined under Rule 21(2).

After hearing from the claimant, the Tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed by the respondent and that his complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded. It also found that his complaint of discrimination on the ground of disability, as set out in sections 13 and/or 15 of the Equality Act 2010, was well founded.

The Tribunal did not determine remedy in this judgment. It directed that there would be a separate hearing to determine the remedies to which the claimant was entitled.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal is well founded. Remedy was reserved to a later hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Disability discrimination	The judgment states that the complaint of discrimination on the ground of disability under sections 13 and/or 15 Equality Act 2010 is well founded. It is unclear from the judgment whether the finding was under section 13, section 15, or both. Remedy was reserved to a later hearing.	Upheld	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.