Case 2405597/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr J Rhodes (solicitor) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2405597/2020
- Decision date
- 18 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 8 October 2020 before Employment Judge Johnson, the tribunal considered the claim against the third respondent Mark Davies. The claimant had named Mr Davies in the claim form, but the form referred to early conciliation certificate number R129817/20/09 dated 2 May 2020, which identified 'BUPA' as the prospective respondent and had already been used in relation to the first respondent.
The tribunal held that this was a substantive defect contrary to Rule 12(1)(f) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. It concluded that the claim against the third respondent should be rejected under Rule 12(2A) in the interests of justice, because the error was more than a minor error.
The judgment did not determine the merits of the remaining claims. It records that the claims against the first and second respondents remained in issue and were to be determined at the full merits hearing listed for 1 to 5 March 2022 in the Manchester Employment Tribunal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim against the third respondent Mark Davies was dismissed/rejected because the claim form referred to early conciliation certificate number R129817/20/09 dated 2 May 2020, which identified 'BUPA' as the prospective respondent and had already been used in relation to the first respondent. The tribunal held this was a substantive defect under Rule 12(1)(f) and should be rejected under Rule 12(2A) because it was more than a minor error. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 12(1)(f) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Rule 12(2A) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- 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.