Case 4103717/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Costello v Represented by:10 N Stewart - Solicitor Lavazza Professional UK Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4103717/2020
- Decision date
- 28 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Costello
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a telephone hearing on 6 November 2020 before Employment Judge R McPherson. The judgment records that the respondent applied for strike out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, for a deposit order under Rule 39, and for an unless order under Rule 38.
The tribunal refused each of those applications at that time. The judgment does not set out substantive findings on the underlying employment claims; it is an interlocutory case management decision only. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, and the written judgment states that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Separate directions for further procedure were issued at the case management preliminary hearing. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment records interlocutory applications only: the respondent's applications for strike out, a deposit order, and an unless order were refused. It does not determine the substantive employment claims. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 38 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 39 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.