Case 2405504/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Forrest v Beaumont Financial Planners Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2405504/2022
- Decision date
- 25 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs R Forrest
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claim against the second respondent, Mark Evans. It applied regulations 12(1)(f), 12(2) and 12(2A) of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure and rejected that claim because the respondent named on the claim form was not the same as the prospective respondent named on the early conciliation certificate linked to the early conciliation number.
The tribunal said it did not accept that the claimant had made only a minor error, and it concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to accept the claim against the second respondent. The judgment does not determine the substantive merits of the wider case.
For the avoidance of doubt, the claim against the first respondent, Beaumont Financial Planners Limited, was unaffected by this judgment and was to proceed to the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim against the second respondent was rejected on a procedural basis because the respondent named on the claim form did not match the prospective respondent named on the early conciliation certificate. The tribunal also stated that it did not accept this was a minor error and that it was not in the interests of justice to accept the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Regulations 12(1)(f), 12(2) and 12(2A) of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.