Case 1401854/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person (by telephone - audio only) For the v Mr Grant (Legal Executive) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401854/2022
- Decision date
- 19 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person (by telephone - audio only) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr B Lawson's claim against Park Holidays UK Limited under Rule 37(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure for non-compliance with the Rules. The judgment records that the claim was presented with a substantive defect under Rule 12(1)(d) because it mistakenly stated that an early conciliation exemption applied.
Applying Miss J. Pryce v Baxterstorey Limited [2022] EAT 61, the tribunal held that a later-produced ACAS certificate could not correct the original defect where there had been no ACAS certificate when the claim was presented. No substantive merits findings or monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The entire claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) for non-compliance with the Rules. The tribunal found a substantive defect under Rule 12(1)(d) because the claim form mistakenly indicated that an early conciliation exemption applied, and a later ACAS certificate could not cure the absence of a certificate when the claim was presented, applying Miss J. Pryce v Baxterstorey Limited [2022] EAT 61. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Rule 12(1)(d) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Miss J. Pryce v Baxterstorey Limited [2022] EAT 61
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.