Case 2300278/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Natasha Bartlett v ATOS IT Services UK Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300278/2019
- Decision date
- 14 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Natasha Bartlett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment determined a preliminary jurisdiction issue in the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. The parties agreed that the effective date of termination was 19 October 2018, and the ET1 was presented on 24 January 2019.
The claimant produced an ACAS early conciliation certificate showing an early conciliation notification date of 17 January 2019. Although that notification contained an error in the respondent's name by omitting "UK", the Tribunal treated it as a minor error and exercised its discretion under Rule 12(2A) of the Employment Tribunals Regulations 2013.
On that basis, the Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment did not decide the substantive unfair dismissal claim or address remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue only: the Tribunal decided it had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint. The merits of the unfair dismissal complaint were not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 12(2A) of the Employment Tribunals Regulations 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.