Case 2303303/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Soares v Serco Limited Heard — 2021
- Case reference
- 2303303/2020
- Decision date
- 15 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Soares
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Soares began employment with the London Borough of Hounslow in November 2011 and transferred to Serco Limited in August 2013 under TUPE. After consultation about changed terms and conditions, he and 12 other individuals notified ACAS on 11 June 2020. The claimant presented an online ET1 on 7 August 2020; the tribunal accepted that he intended to bring a multiple claim even though the multiple-claim question had been answered incorrectly.
Employment Judge Pritchard held that the form as presented did not contain each additional claimant's name and address, so the requirements of Rule 10(1)(b)(i) and (ii) were not met. The additional individuals' claims were therefore rejected under Rule 10(2). The judge held that Rule 6 could not be used to waive the mandatory requirements, and the tribunal could not add the additional claimants under Rule 34.
The tribunal distinguished Hamilton v NHS Grampian and held that the ET1 could still be a prescribed form for a multiple claim. The claimant's own claim was allowed to proceed, but this preliminary judgment did not decide the merits of the unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages or breach of contract claims and did not make any award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim head identified in the ET1. The claimant later confirmed it related to dismissal from the original contract; no merits decision was made at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim head identified in the ET1. The claimant later said it covered the shortfall of wages and contractual benefits under the new contract; no merits decision was made at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim head identified in the ET1. The claimant later said it covered notice pay on dismissal from the old contract and the alleged changes to terms and conditions; no merits decision was made at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Rule 9
- Rule 10(1)(b)(i) and (ii)
- Rule 10(2)
- Rule 6
- Rule 34
- Rule 2 overriding objective
- Sterling v United Learning Trust
- Cranwell v Cullen
- Baisley v South Lanarkshire Council
- E.ON Control Solutions Ltd v Caspall
- Hamilton v NHS Grampian
- Brierley v Asda Stores Ltd
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.