Case 2409621/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr DJA Mills v Coop — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409621/2022
- Decision date
- 3 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr DJA Mills
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented the claim on 2 December 2022 after early conciliation from 17 November 2022 to 2 December 2022. In the claim form he ticked “other payments” and said only that he had not been paid his full severance pay. He quantified the claim at £7,500, made up of £3,500 said to be money owed and £4,000 compensation for pain and suffering.
The respondent said the claimant had been dismissed for gross misconduct, that he had already brought an earlier Employment Tribunal claim under case number 2406509/2022, and that that earlier claim had been settled and then withdrawn. The respondent’s case was that the claimant had received all money due under a COT3 settlement agreement conciliated by ACAS, and that any apparent shortfall reflected statutory deductions. The claimant later said by email that the payments related to the conciliated agreement and that he had not known deductions might be applied.
Neither party attended the hearing on 3 March 2023, so the tribunal decided the matter on the papers. Employment Judge Johnson held that the present claim was one the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider and/or was an abuse of process because it was effectively an attempt to re-litigate the earlier settled case. The tribunal also said that any resolution of an alleged failure to comply with the settlement terms was not something that could be determined in these proceedings.
The claim was therefore struck out of the tribunal’s own initiative under Rule 37(1)(a) as scandalous or vexatious or having no reasonable prospects of success. No substantive remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim was framed as a complaint that the claimant had not been paid his full severance pay, with the claim form referring to £3,500 said to be owed and £4,000 for compensation. The tribunal treated it as an attempt to re-litigate issues arising from a previously settled and withdrawn case, and held that any dispute about compliance with the agreed settlement terms could not be determined in these proceedings. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- Rule 12(1)(a)
- Rule 12(1)(b)
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.