Case 3306703/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Poundland Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3306703/2018
- Decision date
- 18 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing concerned the respondent's application to strike out the First Claimant's claim after she did not attend. The First Claimant had applied for a postponement the day before the hearing, referring to domestic issues and her father's health, but the application had been refused on the papers.
Employment Judge George held that strike out was not in accordance with the overriding objective. The judge noted the late postponement request, absence of supporting evidence, and that the First Claimant had known about the hearing, but also found this was not a case where she had taken no steps to pursue the claim and there was no reason to think a fair trial was impossible.
The judge declined to make an unless order for particularisation at that stage, noting that the claim was unclear and the claimants were acting in person. Specific orders for particularisation were to be made and the case was relisted for an open preliminary hearing to consider joinder, irregularity, possible strike out, and possible deposit orders.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment determined the respondent's application to strike out the First Claimant's claim for non-attendance at the preliminary hearing; the application was dismissed. The underlying claims were not substantively identified or determined in this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
- rule 30A of the Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 9 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 6 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 6A
- rule 37 of the 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.
- 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.