Case 2402850/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Wood v Lakeview Rest Homes Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402850/2019
- Decision date
- 4 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Wood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Slater held that case 2402850/2019 had been presented with the ACAS Early Conciliation number from the claimant's second certificate rather than the first. Applying E.ON Control Solutions Limited v Caspall and rule 12(2) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal concluded it was bound to reject the claims in that case.
Because the claimant's case was not a validly instituted claim, the respondent's counterclaim could not proceed. The reasons also record discussion of a separate later claim about the same subject matter, case 2410737/19, which had been rejected by Regional Employment Judge Parkin under rule 10(1)(c) because the early conciliation certificate was not available on the ACAS system; the tribunal noted that an application for reconsideration could still be made. No costs application was made at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Case 2402850/2019 was rejected under rule 12(2) because the ACAS Early Conciliation number on the claim form related to the claimant's second certificate rather than the first certificate. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The respondent's counterclaim could not proceed because there was no validly instituted claimant case. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- E.ON Control Solutions Limited v Caspall UKEAT/0003/19
- rule 12(2) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 10(1)(c) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.