Case 4116996/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Walton v Sunny-Sid up Charity Shop — 2018
- Case reference
- 4116996/2018
- Decision date
- 21 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Walton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal was dealing with reconsideration of a judgment dated 5 October 2018. It noted that no ET3 disputing the claim had been received within the permitted time, so judgment on liability had been signed under Rule 21 and issued to the parties on 9 October 2018.
The respondents then lodged an ET3 on 12 October 2018 with a request for reconsideration and an explanation for the late filing. The claimant was invited to comment but did not reply. The tribunal decided that it was in the interests of justice to grant reconsideration, revoke the judgment of 5 October 2018, and extend time for receipt of the ET3.
The effect of the decision was that the ET3 submitted on 12 October 2018 was accepted and the claim was to proceed as defended. The judgment does not determine the substantive unfair dismissal or public interest disclosure claims, and it does not record any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not determine the unfair dismissal complaint on the merits. It revokes the earlier Rule 21 liability judgment, accepts the respondent's late ET3, and allows the claim to proceed as defended. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment does not determine the public interest disclosure complaint on the merits. It revokes the earlier Rule 21 liability judgment, accepts the respondent's late ET3, and allows the claim to proceed as defended. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- 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.