Case 2304845/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S William v London General Transport Service Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304845/2021
- Decision date
- 30 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S William
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 9 May 2022 at London South, Employment Judge Reed heard a reconsideration of the judgment dated 5 May 2022 that had dismissed the claim on the basis of withdrawal. Both parties attended and addressed the tribunal on the issue.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant's intention had not been to withdraw the claim. Instead, the claimant had intended to accept that the respondent's name should be amended. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that it was necessary in the interests of justice to reconsider the earlier decision and revoke it.
This judgment dealt only with the procedural question of withdrawal and reconsideration. It did not decide the underlying employment claims on their merits, and no remedy was awarded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Judgment on reconsideration under rules 70 and 73; the earlier judgment dismissing the claim following an assumed withdrawal was revoked because the tribunal accepted the claimant had not intended to withdraw the claim, only to agree to amendment of the respondent's name. No substantive merits determination was made in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rules 70 and 73
- interests of justice
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.