Case 2205647/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Joseph De Campi (2205647/2025) Ms Michelle Devine (1401968/2025) v ISG Interior Services Group UK Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2205647/2025
- Decision date
- 12 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Joseph De Campi (2205647/2025) Ms Michelle Devine (1401968/2025)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered claims brought by Mr Joseph De Campi and Ms Michelle Devine against ISG Interior Services Group UK Limited (In Administration) and the Secretary of State of Business & Trade. Mr De Campi attended in person; Ms Devine and the respondents did not attend or have representation recorded.
The Tribunal struck out the claims pursuant to Rule 38. It found that it had no jurisdiction because the claims had been presented out of time and that it had been reasonably practicable for them to have been presented within time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment records that the claims were struck out under Rule 38 because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction: the claims were presented out of time and it had been reasonably practicable to present them within time. The short judgment does not provide detailed claim particulars. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The gov.uk listing identifies Protective Award as a category, but the locked taxonomy has no protective award claim type. The judgment itself refers generally to the claims and does not give further particulars. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38
- reasonably practicable
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.