Case 2211434/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J. Bostic v Mitie Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2211434/2022
- Decision date
- 20 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goodman
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms J. Bostic
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a disability discrimination claim and named Mitie Ltd and individual co-workers as respondents. The claim against Mitie Ltd had been rejected because the early conciliation certificate number entered on the ET1 was a duplicate number for another respondent, although the claimant later supplied a certificate naming Mitie Ltd.
The tribunal found that the claimant had made an error in relation to the certificate number and that she had complied with early conciliation requirements when presenting the claim. It considered that the original rejection was correct because the valid number had not been supplied, but that the defect had been rectified on 20 February 2023.
The tribunal extended time for the reconsideration application under rule 5 and accepted the claim against Mitie Ltd as presented on 20 February 2023. It did not decide the merits of the disability discrimination claim or make any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment concerns reconsideration of rejection and accepts the claim against Mitie Ltd as presented on 20 February 2023. It does not determine the merits of the disability discrimination claim. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 13 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 12 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 12(2ZA) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 5 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Clark and others v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited 2002 IRLR 996
- overriding objective
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.