Case 2403621/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Hologic Ltd v Mr R Hines — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403621/2024
- Decision date
- 26 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Hologic Ltd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent presented an employer’s counterclaim for breach of contract on 21 May 2024. The Tribunal accepted that the claimant had previously withdrawn his contract claim, which formed part of claim number 2402234/2024, on 15 May 2024 and that withdrawal was confirmed by the Tribunal on 18 May 2024. After that withdrawal, the only remaining claim was a statutory unfair dismissal claim.
The Tribunal held that it could only hear an employer’s counterclaim if, when the counterclaim was presented, there was still a valid employee contract claim before the Tribunal. By the time the counterclaim was lodged, the contract claim had already come to an end under rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment also referred to article 4 and article 8(a) of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994/1623.
Because the employee’s contract claim had been withdrawn before the employer’s counterclaim was presented, the Tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim and dismissed it. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Employer’s counterclaim was dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it after the claimant’s contract claim had been withdrawn before the counterclaim was presented. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- article 4 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994/1623
- article 8(a) Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994/1623
- rule 51 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 52 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.