Case 4110355/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Szalek v Pure Cleaning (Scotland) Ltd and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 4110355/2019
- Decision date
- 9 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss M Szalek
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss M Szalek presented a claim on 21 August 2019 seeking accrued holiday pay said to be outstanding on termination of employment. The tribunal sent the claim to Pure Cleaning (Scotland) Ltd on 27 August 2019 and required a response by 24 September 2019. No response or application for an extension of time was received by that date, and the respondent's response arrived on 1 October 2019 without any extension request or explanation for the lateness.
The Employment Judge rejected the late response under rule 18 and then dismissed the respondent's reconsideration application. The reconsideration request, dated 18 October 2019 but received on 22 October 2019, was itself out of time under rule 19(2), and there was no application to extend that time limit. The judge also said the application would fail on its merits because the reasons advanced for missing the original deadline, namely ACAS discussions and an expectation that conciliation would resolve the matter, were not a sufficient basis for non-compliance with clear tribunal deadlines.
The judge noted that ACAS had reached an impasse on 13 September 2019, which still left time for a response to be filed before the 24 September deadline. The result was that the refusal to accept the response stood, and the case was to proceed to a final hearing with rule 21(3) applying. The judge also referred to Office Equipment Limited v Hughes [2018] EWCA Civ 1842 when noting that a respondent should normally be able to participate on remedy issues.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Respondent's application for reconsideration of the decision rejecting its late response was dismissed; the underlying accrued holiday pay claim was not determined in this judgment and was listed to proceed to a final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- ET Rules of Procedure 2013 rule 18
- ET Rules of Procedure 2013 rule 19(2)
- ET Rules of Procedure 2013 rule 19(3)
- ET Rules of Procedure 2013 rule 21(3)
- Office Equipment Limited v Hughes [2018] EWCA Civ 1842
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.