Case 1402688/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Howlett (1) Mr C Panaro (2) v Mrs M Underwood — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402688/2021
- Decision date
- 14 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Howlett (1) Mr C Panaro (2)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with two employment tribunal case numbers, 1402688/2021 and 1402690/2021, heard at Bristol on 1 September 2022 before Employment Judge Self sitting alone. The judgment records the claimants as Ms C Howlett and Mr C Panaro and the respondent as Mrs M Underwood.
The tribunal rejected the claim against Mr A Underwood under Rule 12(1)(f) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 because Mr Underwood's name did not appear on the Early Conciliation Certificate cited in the claim form, and the exclusion in Rule 12(2A) was not satisfied. It also struck out both parties' claims of automatically unfair dismissal on the basis that they had no reasonable prospects of success. No monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim against Mr A Underwood was rejected under Rule 12(1)(f) because his name was not on the Early Conciliation Certificate cited in the claim form, and the Rule 12(2A) exclusion was not met. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Both parties' claims of automatically unfair dismissal were struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 12(1)(f) Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 12(2A) Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.