Case 2304775/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Allen v H M Government — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304775/2019
- Decision date
- 8 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Allen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Andrews reconsidered, under Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, the withdrawal judgment dated 21 September 2022 and revoked it. The judge said the claimant's correspondence of 1 August 2022 showed that, when he withdrew, he wished to reserve the right to bring a further claim, and that this was a legitimate reason for doing so.
The tribunal therefore replaced the earlier judgment with an appropriate letter acknowledging the withdrawal. The decision does not determine the merits of the underlying age and sex discrimination claims and records no financial remedy; the replacement letter was also to incorporate claim number 2304776/2019.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment revoked the previous rule 52 withdrawal judgment and replaced it with a letter acknowledging withdrawal; no merits decision was made. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment revoked the previous rule 52 withdrawal judgment and replaced it with a letter acknowledging withdrawal; no merits decision was made. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 70 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 52 withdrawal
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.