Case 2210210/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Phillips v Virtusa UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2210210/2023
- Decision date
- 29 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Phillips
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claim on the papers under rule 27 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. It wrote to the claimant on 15 August 2023 setting out two grounds on which it was considering dismissal, and the claimant responded by emails dated 11 August 2023 and 24 August 2023.
The first ground was that the claimant had not entered into Acas early conciliation before presenting the claim. The claimant said he was not aware of the requirement to do so before starting proceedings.
The second ground was that the claimant did not have the service needed to pursue an unfair dismissal claim. In his email of 24 August 2023 he said he wished to pursue a claim of automatic unfair dismissal because of 'cheating', but the tribunal recorded that no such claim exists in that form and that he would have needed to identify a type of automatic unfair dismissal recognised in legislation and applicable to the case.
The tribunal therefore dismissed the claim. The hearing listed for 26 and 27 October 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed under rule 27 without a merits hearing. The tribunal identified two procedural defects: failure to enter Acas early conciliation before presenting the claim, and no valid statutory basis for the claimant's stated wish to pursue 'automatic unfair dismissal because of cheating'. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 27 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Acas early conciliation requirement
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.