Case 1305640/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Rixon, consultant v Mr T Cockfroft, commercial director — 2019
- Case reference
- 1305640/2018
- Decision date
- 6 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Coghlin QC
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Rixon, consultant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented an ET1 against Brit Sec Staff Services Ltd and Independent Contractor Security Ltd. Brit Sec had not filed a response and took no part in the hearing. The claimant's representative accepted that the ET1 had wrongly stated that an early conciliation exception applied to the claim against Independent Contractor Security Ltd, when in fact no such exception applied.
The tribunal therefore rejected the claim against Independent Contractor Security Ltd under rule 12(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. The judge explained that the claim should have been rejected under rule 12(1)(d) because the early conciliation requirement had not been satisfied, but preferred the rule 12 route so that the claimant could use the rule 13 reconsideration procedure. The judgment does not determine the substantive merits of any claim against Brit Sec.
The claimant then stated that he wished to pursue claims against Brit Sec only, and said that on a proper analysis there was no relevant TUPE transfer. He said that any remaining claim would be for unfair dismissal only. The tribunal held that an amendment was required and directed the claimant to file redrafted particulars of claim, with further case management to follow in a separate order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal rejected the claim against the second respondent, Independent Contractor Security Ltd, pursuant to rule 12(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 because the claimant had not commenced early conciliation against that respondent and no statutory exception applied. The judge noted that the claim should have been rejected under rule 12(1)(d), but used rule 12(2) so that the claimant could still seek reconsideration under rule 13. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 12(1)(d) ET Rules 2013
- rule 12(2) ET Rules 2013
- rule 13 ET Rules 2013
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.