Case 3303322/2022 · Employment Tribunal
No appearance For the v Mitchells & Butler plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 3303322/2022
- Decision date
- 19 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No appearance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented the claim on 13 March 2022 without an ACAS Early Conciliation certificate. The tribunal recorded that the form referred to unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, arrears of pay, statutory sick pay, bullying, discrimination, whistleblowing, and verbal sexual assault. It also noted that the form appeared to raise potential automatic unfair dismissal issues under sections 100 and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the discrimination complaints and the unlawful deduction of wages complaint were relevant proceedings for the purposes of section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and were not covered by any exemption. Because the claimant had not completed Early Conciliation, the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear those claims and struck them out. It relied on rule 12(2) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and referred to EON Control Solutions v Caspall on the tribunal's power to reject a claim when jurisdictional defects are identified.
Although the claim form ticked a box indicating that an application for interim relief was included, the tribunal found that no such application had in fact been made, and no supporting documentation was provided. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim also required Early Conciliation. The tribunal therefore held it had no jurisdiction to hear that claim either and struck the claim out in its entirety.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal treated this as an unfair dismissal claim and noted the form ticked an interim relief box, but found no interim relief application had in fact been made. It held the claim required Early Conciliation and struck it out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim form ticked disability discrimination, although section 12 of the form said the claimant did not have a disability. The tribunal held the discrimination complaints were relevant proceedings requiring Early Conciliation and struck them out. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal described the claim as including complaints of sexual harassment and referred to 'verbal sexual assault' in the pleaded narrative. It struck this out with the other non-exempt claims for failure to complete Early Conciliation. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal treated the pleaded arrears of pay and denial of statutory sick pay as part of an unlawful deduction of wages complaint. It held the claim required Early Conciliation and struck it out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- s.18(1) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- rule 12(2) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- regulation 3 Employment Tribunals (Early Conciliation: Exemption and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2014
- EON Control Solutions v Caspall UKEAT/0003/19
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.