Case 2415482/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hughes v Prefix Systems (UK) Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 2415482/2018
- Decision date
- 22 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sherratt JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Hughes applied on 7 November 2018 for reconsideration of the decision not to accept the claim against the four individual respondents. Employment Judge Sherratt refused the application in the judgment dated 22 November 2018. The underlying claim against the company respondent had been accepted; this judgment dealt only with the reconsideration request concerning the individual respondents.
The tribunal held that there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. It recorded that a Claim Form must have an Early Conciliation Certificate for each named respondent, and that there was only one Early Conciliation Certificate for the company respondent. The tribunal also noted that it was open to a claimant to apply to add respondents in accordance with the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, but that it was not for the Employment Judge to do so on his own initiative in the circumstances of this case.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application dated 7 November 2018 for reconsideration of the decision not to accept the claim against the four individual respondents was refused. The tribunal said there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked
- 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.