Case 1805028/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1805028/2019
- Decision date
- 18 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rogerson Representation
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Rogerson on 15 November 2019. The claimant was Mr C Henderson, appearing in person, and the respondent was Poundland Ltd represented by Mr McHugh, counsel. The judgment records no substantive employment complaint being determined at this stage; instead, it addressed whether the claim form had been validly presented.
The tribunal held that the claim form presented on 23 September 2019 did not comply with Rule 3(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunals (Early Conciliation: Exemptions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2014. It revoked the decision to accept the claim made on 27 September 2019 because the claimant had not shown the exemption relied upon, namely that the respondent had contacted ACAS in relation to the dispute.
The claimant confirmed that he had misunderstood the position when completing the claim form and was not exempt from the early conciliation requirements when the claim was presented. On that basis, the tribunal rejected the claim because it was substantively defective. No remedy or substantive merits finding was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that the claim form presented on 23 September 2019 did not comply with Rule 3(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunals (Early Conciliation: Exemptions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2014, revoked the decision to accept the claim on 27 September 2019, and rejected the claim as substantively defective because the claimant had not shown the exemption relied upon. | Other | — | — |
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.