Case 1600560/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. M. Da Costa (C1) Mr. K. Wilson (C2) Mr. C Allen-Thomas (C3) v British Gas Trading Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600560/2018
- Decision date
- 9 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. M. Da Costa (C1) Mr. K. Wilson (C2) Mr. C Allen-Thomas (C3)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal recorded that C1's claim for entitlement to a redundancy payment was dismissed upon withdrawal. It also dismissed C1's unamended claim on the basis that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it.
The Tribunal refused and dismissed the claimants' applications to amend their claims to include unfair dismissal claims based on Hogg v Dover College [1990] ICR 39. The Tribunal granted C2 and C3's applications to amend their claims to include constructive unfair dismissal claims, with further orders made separately.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment states that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within the specified period.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | C1's claim of entitlement to a redundancy payment was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimants' applications to amend their claims to include unfair dismissal claims based on Hogg v Dover College were refused and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | C1's unamended claim was dismissed because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear it; the judgment does not identify the unamended claim type beyond this wording. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | C2 and C3's applications to amend their claims to include constructive unfair dismissal claims were granted; the merits of those claims were not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Hogg v Dover College [1990] ICR 39
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.