Case 1402317/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Jenkins v Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402317/2021
- Decision date
- 1 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Jenkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused the claimant's application for reconsideration of the decision dated 1 March 2022. The application was made within the Rule 71 time limit, but the tribunal found that reconsideration was not necessary in the interests of justice and that there was no reasonable prospect of the decision being varied or revoked.
The earlier decision had refused the claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response. The tribunal noted that the claimant's strike-out application relied on disputed factual assertions and conclusions, and that the respondent's pleaded case showed significant factual matters in dispute.
Applying the authorities on strike-out where central facts are disputed, the tribunal concluded that the matter should be determined at a final hearing after sworn evidence and submissions. It was not possible on the material before the tribunal to say that the respondent had no reasonable prospect of defending the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment concerns the claimant's application for reconsideration of a decision refusing to strike out the respondent's response. The underlying unfair dismissal claim was not finally determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 70 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 71 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 72(1) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(1) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Tayside Public Transport Co Ltd t/a Travel Dundee v Reilly
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.