Case 2501570/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr K Pringle v Community Integrated Care — 2023

Case reference: 2501570/2022
Decision date: 17 May 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Loy

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr K Pringle

Respondent

Community Integrated Care

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a judgment on the claimant’s application for reconsideration of a strike-out decision previously sent to the parties on 17 May 2023. The tribunal refused the reconsideration application dated 26 May 2023, finding there was no reasonable prospect that the original decision would be varied or revoked.

The tribunal held that the original strike-out judgment had already explained clearly why section 64 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not apply to the claimant’s case, and that the reconsideration application did not address those reasons in any meaningful way. It also stated that it was not the role of the Employment Judge to raise questions to Parliament for a party or to identify statutory provisions to support a party’s case.

The tribunal concluded that the strike-out was based on the clear non-applicability of section 64 ERA 1996 in these proceedings, and that no wider considerations of equity or conscience arose.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	This judgment concerns refusal of reconsideration of an earlier strike-out decision sent on 17 May 2023. The extracted text identifies section 64 Employment Rights Act 1996 as the basis argued by the claimant, but does not clearly specify the underlying statutory claim category within the locked taxonomy.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.