Case 4102509/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Baiamonte v Represented by: R Gunn - Consultants Waterside Classics Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4102509/2020
- Decision date
- 18 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Baiamonte
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a procedural judgment, not a merits decision. The hearing took place by telephone conference call on 10 November 2020 before Employment Judge R McPherson in the case of Mr A Baiamonte v Waterside Classics Ltd.
The tribunal allowed the respondent's application for an extension of time to present an ET3 response late under Rule 20 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The ET3 response was therefore accepted. The judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the standard rule stated in the judgment.
The judgment also records that separate directions for further procedure were issued at the case management preliminary hearing. No substantive claims were determined and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not determine a substantive tribunal claim. It allows the respondent's application for extension of time to present an ET3 response late under Rule 20 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and accepts the ET3 response. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 20 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.
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.