Case 6000430/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Margaret McCarthy v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000430/2024
- Decision date
- 14 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Margaret McCarthy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned the claimant's application for reconsideration of an earlier judgment, sent to the parties on 14 October 2024, which had dismissed her claim under Rule 52. Employment Judge Woodhead considered the application at the preliminary stage.
The claimant's correspondence was described as focusing on regret about accepting, through ACAS, settlement on a full and final basis, apparently because she considered she might have a separate personal injury claim. The tribunal noted that the claimant acknowledged accepting an offer made by the respondent via ACAS, and that ACAS had confirmed to the parties on 28 March 2024 that the settlement was legally binding even though the COT3 had not been signed.
The tribunal concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of the original judgment being varied or revoked. The application for reconsideration was refused.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The underlying claim had been dismissed under Rule 52 after ACAS confirmed a legally binding settlement. This judgment refused the claimant's reconsideration application and did not determine the unfair dismissal claim on its merits. | Settled | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 52
- Rule 70 interests of justice
- Rule 72(1) no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked
- Rule 2 overriding objective
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.