Case 2602940/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Sharp v Glenway Products Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602940/2020
- Decision date
- 23 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Millns Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Sharp
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public hearing in Nottingham by CVP on 23 March 2022, before Employment Judge Millns, the tribunal dealt with two procedural applications rather than a substantive employment claim. The Claimant, Mr J Sharp, was represented by Mr M Singh, Solicitor, and the Respondent, Glenway Products Limited, was represented by Ms Gould, Counsel.
The Claimant's application for relief from sanction under Rule 38(2) was dismissed. The written record does not set out the tribunal's reasons, but the order records the outcome of that application only.
The Respondent's application for costs, said to relate to the adjourned hearing of 2 November 2021, was dismissed upon withdrawal. No monetary award was made in the judgment, and the record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The Claimant's application for relief from sanction under Rule 38(2) was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The Respondent's application for costs, relating to the adjourned hearing of 2 November 2021, was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.