Case 4121912/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Members Ms C Courtney Mr J Burnett Mr P Getty v Hmr Group Holdings Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4121912/2018
- Decision date
- 19 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Gall Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Ms C Courtney, Mr J Burnett
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Members Ms C Courtney Mr J Burnett Mr P Getty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the case had been listed for a three-day hearing beginning on 17 February 2020. The claimant attended in person and explained that he had recently been prescribed Valium, taken three times daily alongside sleeping pills, antidepressants, and medication for stomach issues. He said he could barely concentrate and sought a postponement.
The respondent took instructions during an adjournment and confirmed that it did not oppose postponement on this occasion, while indicating it would be less inclined to agree if a further postponement became necessary. The Tribunal unanimously granted the claimant's postponement application.
The Tribunal directed that fresh three-day hearing dates should be set down as soon as possible, subject to the claimant's health. It told the claimant that if he felt unable to proceed on the new dates, he should alert the Tribunal and the respondent as soon as possible and provide medical evidence addressing the health issues and likely timescale for being able to proceed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records only that the listed hearing was postponed on the claimant's unopposed application. It does not adjudicate the underlying claim or determine liability. | Other | — | — |
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.