Case 4105469/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Cannon v Tuffnells Parcels Express Limited (in administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 4105469/2023
- Decision date
- 21 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Cannon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 22 September 2023 the claimants' representative presented claims for a protective award. On 21 December 2023 the respondent's administrator confirmed that the claims could continue and that the respondent did not intend to defend them. A rule 21 judgment was then signed on 10 April 2024 and issued to the parties on 11 April 2024.
On 18 July 2024 the claimants' representative applied for reconsideration under rules 70 and 71 of the Employment Tribunals Rules, saying the start date for the protected period in the claim form had been drafted incorrectly and was not noticed until the Redundancy Payments Service refused to pay the award. Employment Judge MacLean accepted that the error was a drafting oversight, held that it was in the interests of justice to revisit the original judgment despite the late application, and varied the judgment so that the protected period began on 12 June 2023 rather than 15 June 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under TULRCA; the application for reconsideration was granted and the original judgment was varied so the protected period started on 12 June 2023 instead of 15 June 2023. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 70 reconsideration
- rule 71 14-day limit
- interests of justice
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.