Case 2502277/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Charlton v Bedworld Factory Shop Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2502277/2020
- Decision date
- 6 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Speker OBE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P Charlton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the respondent had failed to comply with the order made on 4 June 2021, paragraph 17, and had failed to comply with the overriding objective in the proceedings. On that basis, the respondent's response was struck out under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment states that the hearing on 10 September 2021 was to determine remedies only, and that the respondent would be permitted to participate to the extent allowed by the tribunal. The available text does not set out any monetary award, and no remedy figure is recorded in the judgment provided. The case metadata identifies the underlying claims as sex discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Claim type taken from the case listing categories; the judgment text itself only records that the respondent's response was struck out under Rule 21 and that a later hearing would determine remedies only. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim type taken from the case listing categories; the judgment text itself only records that the respondent's response was struck out under Rule 21 and that a later hearing would determine remedies only. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
- overriding objective
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.