Case 2301675/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Irons v H W Fisher & Co t/a Fisher Partners — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301675/2019
- Decision date
- 4 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Representation
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Irons
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G Irons worked for Home Fundraising Ltd from 15 July 2008. The judgment records that Home Fundraising Ltd entered a company voluntary arrangement in May 2018, went into administration on 1 March 2019, and that Mr Irons was dismissed as redundant on 12 March 2019. He presented a claim naming H W Fisher & Co t/a Fisher Partners.
The tribunal treated the claim as a protective award claim under s.189 TULRCA. It held that mandatory Acas early conciliation applied, that the ET1 had been presented on 7 May 2019 before the Acas certificate was issued on 8 May 2019, and that the claim form did not contain an Acas EC certificate number. Applying E.ON v Caspall, the tribunal said there was no discretion and the claim should have remained rejected under Rules 12(1)(c) and (d) of the ET Rules, with Rule 10(1)(c)(i) also relied on.
The tribunal also held that the claim was directed against the administrator's employer rather than the claimant's employer, Home Fundraising Ltd, and that no permission had been sought to present a claim against the company in administration. For that reason it found there was no jurisdiction under Rule 12(1)(a). In addition, the ET1 pleaded insufficiency of consultation, but employee representatives had been elected at the site, so the claimant had no standing to bring the claim on the pleaded basis under s.189 TULRCA. The claim was therefore rejected and/or struck out; no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under s.189 TULRCA. The tribunal held the ET1 should have remained rejected because mandatory Acas early conciliation requirements were not met on the face of the claim form, and there was no applicable exemption. It also held the claim was brought against the administrator's employer rather than the claimant's employer, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction; alternatively, the claimant had no standing on the pleaded basis because employee representatives had been elected. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.18A(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- s.189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Rule 10(1)(c)(i) ET Rules
- Rule 12(1)(a) ET Rules
- Rule 12(1)(c) and (d) ET Rules
- E.ON v Caspall UKEAT/0003/19/JOJ
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.