Case 2408291/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hirst v 10/10 Medical Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408291/2022
- Decision date
- 13 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hirst
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Hirst presented complaints under case number 2408291/2022 on 7 October 2022 against several respondents, including 10/10 Medical Limited. He later withdrew the complaints against all respondents other than 10/10 Medical Limited, and judgments dismissing the withdrawn claims had already been made.
At the hearing on 7 February 2023, Employment Judge Johnson recorded ACAS confirmation from Paul Bond that a COT3 agreement had been reached between the claimant and 10/10 Medical Limited on 7 October 2022 under ECC R224668/22/41. The judgment states that the Tribunal should not have accepted the claim because the parties had already reached a relevant settlement on that date.
On that basis, the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the remaining claim against 10/10 Medical Limited and dismissed the claim. No substantive merits findings or monetary remedy were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Dismissed because the complaint against 10/10 Medical Limited had already been settled by an ACAS COT3 reached on 7 October 2022 under ECC R224668/22/41, so the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.