Case 4100699/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Miss H Truesdale v Ace Resurfacing Ltd — 2019

Case reference: 4100699/2019
Decision date: 10 April 2019
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge Robert Gall
Venue: Glasgow

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss H Truesdale

Respondent

Ace Resurfacing Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The case called for a full hearing on 10 April 2019, but the tribunal did not determine the merits of the claimant's claims. The claimant attended and was ready to proceed. The tribunal recorded that no valid ET3 had been presented by the respondents by the deadline of 1 March 2019, so the claim was treated as undefended. The out-of-time ET3 lodged on 20 March 2019 was rejected under Rule 18 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because there was no accompanying application for extension of time.

The tribunal also noted that the rejection letter was sent on 2 April 2019 and that, under Rule 19, an application for reconsideration of the rejection could still be made within 14 days. In those circumstances the Employment Judge concluded that the hearing could not proceed in the interests of justice while that application remained possible. The hearing was postponed and a fresh hearing was set for 29 April 2019 at 2 pm. The judgment records that, if reconsideration were later granted, the matter might proceed as a case management preliminary hearing; if not, the hearing could proceed as listed.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	No substantive claim was adjudicated at this hearing. The judgment postponed the full hearing because the respondents' ET3 had been submitted out of time and rejected, and a further hearing was set for 29 April 2019.	Other	—	—

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.