Case 3204231/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Bridgeman v Mr R. Frost — 2023
- Case reference
- 3204231/2022
- Decision date
- 20 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Povey Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Bridgeman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss E Bridgeman brought a fresh claim against Mr R Frost, described as a director of Kingswood of Basildon Limited trading as Kingswood Estate Agents, after ACAS Early Conciliation between 15 and 17 December 2021 and presentation of the ET1 on 19 July 2022. She said the new claim raised exactly the same complaints as her earlier claim, case 3207533/2021, namely unfair dismissal, age discrimination, sex discrimination, and non-payment of other payments.
The tribunal recorded that the earlier claim had been withdrawn by the claimant and then dismissed under rule 52 by a judgment sent on 19 February 2022. No application was made within 14 days for that judgment to be considered afresh by a judge. The tribunal explained that rule 52 prevents a claimant from bringing a further claim raising the same, or substantially the same, complaint, and that the earlier judgment also operated as a cause of action estoppel.
Applying that position, the tribunal held that it had no power to consider the current complaints. It found that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out in its entirety. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the tribunal held the current complaint duplicated the earlier withdrawn claim in case 3207533/2021. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Struck out because the tribunal held the current complaint duplicated the earlier withdrawn claim in case 3207533/2021. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out because the tribunal held the current complaint duplicated the earlier withdrawn claim in case 3207533/2021. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this complaint as non-payment of 'other payments'; it was struck out for the same reason as the other complaints, namely that it repeated the earlier withdrawn claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- cause of action estoppel
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.