Case 2207257/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Freelancer & Contractor Services Association and Others — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207257/2021
- Decision date
- 17 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sutton QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis decision concerns an application for reconsideration of an earlier preliminary-hearing ruling dated 28 April 2022, attended by the claimant in person and counsel for the first, fourth and fifth respondents. In that original ruling, the tribunal struck out the claims against the first and fifth respondents under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success, and dismissed the claim against the fourth respondent because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it, it being time-barred.
After the claimant emailed on 29 April 2022 challenging the decision, alleging that it was false and misleading and saying that there had been bias, the judge considered whether there was any proper basis to recuse himself. Having consulted the Regional Employment Judge for London Central, he decided there was no proper basis, retained involvement in the proceedings, and later heard the first and fifth respondents' costs application on 20 June 2022.
On reconsideration under Rules 70 to 72, the judge found that the original reasons did not contain false or misleading comments and that there was no reasonable prospect of the decision being varied or revoked. The application for reconsideration was therefore refused under Rule 72(1). The extract does not set out the substantive merits findings of the original claims, only their procedural disposal at preliminary hearing and on reconsideration.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The preliminary-hearing decision on 28 April 2022 struck out the claims against the first and fifth respondents under Rule 37(1)(a) because they had no reasonable prospect of success. This reconsideration ruling does not identify the underlying legal label for those claims in the extract. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The preliminary-hearing decision on 28 April 2022 dismissed the claim against the fourth respondent because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it, the claim being time-barred. This reconsideration ruling does not identify the underlying legal label for that claim in the extract. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 70-72 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 72(1) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.