Case 1803941/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Agley & Others v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1803941/2021
- Decision date
- 13 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Agley & Others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimants' application dated 31 August 2021 to reconsider the rejection of the claim against CGTR Realisations Limited. It held that the original rejection was correct under Rule 13(4), because the claim details had not referred to a Section 192 TULR(C)A claim and had referred only to non-payment by the Secretary of State.
The claimants' solicitor clarified that the claimants intended to pursue a Section 192 claim for non-payment against the second respondent. The tribunal found it was in the interests of justice to allow the amendment, noting the reasons in the reconsideration application and that there had been no opposition from the administrator by 13 September 2021.
The claim against CGTR Realisations Limited was therefore treated as accepted on 31 August 2021, with permission to amend to identify the claim as set out in the judgment. No substantive liability or remedy was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment granted reconsideration of the rejection of the claim against CGTR Realisations Limited and permitted amendment to identify a Section 192 TULR(C)A claim for non-payment against the second respondent. It did not determine the substantive claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 13(4)
- interests of justice
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.