Case 2300422/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Fullbrook v G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300422/2021
- Decision date
- 3 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smith. It
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Fullbrook
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter had been listed for a final hearing on 14 October 2022 but proceeded as a case management hearing, at which orders were made requiring the claimant to set out the basis of his claim by 28 October 2022. The respondent later applied to strike out the claim for non-compliance with that order.
On 13 and 14 December 2022 the claimant's representative emailed the tribunal stating that claim 2300422/2021 was withdrawn. The tribunal then issued a Rule 52 judgment dismissing the claim on the basis that it had been withdrawn.
The claimant's representative applied for reconsideration, raising alleged difficulties and irregularities at the October hearing and alleging bias. Employment Judge Heath refused reconsideration, finding no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked because the withdrawal had been repeated and unequivocal, and no basis had been provided for varying or revoking the judgment that followed from it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claim was withdrawn by the claimant's representative and dismissed under Rule 52; the underlying claim type is taken from the listing category, as the judgment text itself does not describe the substantive claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 52 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- no reasonable prospect of the Judgment being varied or revoked
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.