Case 3301539/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Rai v Vine Social Care Agency Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301539/2024
- Decision date
- 1 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Rai
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Mr Rai's claim because he had reached a settlement agreement with Vine Social Care Agency Limited with the assistance of an Acas conciliator. The agreement was recorded in a COT3 document signed by the claimant on 8 December 2023 and on behalf of the respondent on 12 December 2023.
The tribunal found that the COT3 was a valid agreement for the purposes of section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 144 of the Equality Act 2010. For that reason, the claim could not proceed and was dismissed. The written judgment does not break the dismissal down by separate head of claim; the jurisdiction ruling disposed of the proceedings as a whole.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not separate the pleaded heads of claim; this head was disposed of by the jurisdiction ruling because the tribunal found a valid COT3 settlement agreement. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not separate the pleaded heads of claim; this head was disposed of by the jurisdiction ruling because the tribunal found a valid COT3 settlement agreement within s.144 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment does not separate the pleaded heads of claim; this head was disposed of by the jurisdiction ruling because the tribunal found a valid COT3 settlement agreement under s.203 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not separate the pleaded heads of claim; this head was disposed of by the jurisdiction ruling because the tribunal found a valid COT3 settlement agreement under s.203 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.203 ERA 1996
- s.144 Equality Act 2010
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.