Case 2305449/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v G4s Facilities Management (uk) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2305449/2019
- Decision date
- 30 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden In
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered an application under Rule 71 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 following a decision on 9 November 2022 dismissing the claimant's claim after emails were taken to show that it had been withdrawn. The claimant said that neither she nor her husband, Mr Baxter, had sent the withdrawal emails from the nominated contact email account.
Employment Judge Ramsden found that the claimant had not shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the emails were not sent by her or on her behalf. The explanation that a former colleague of Mr Baxter had hacked the account and sent the withdrawal emails was found to be improbable and unsupported by cogent evidence. The tribunal noted the content of the emails, including knowledge of County Court procedure and of the claimant's employment setting, and also noted that no evidence was produced from the IT expert or Mr Whiken.
The tribunal held that it was not in the interests of justice to revoke or vary the earlier dismissal of the claim. The application therefore failed and the earlier decision was confirmed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 71 reconsideration application arising from the earlier dismissal of the claim after apparent withdrawal emails. The judgment refused to reopen the dismissal and confirmed the earlier decision. Paragraph 1 refers to the respondent's application, but the reasons and decision section address the claimant's application. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 71 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- balance of probabilities
- 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.
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.