Case 3305062/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Mykoo v The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police — 2022
- Case reference
- 3305062/2022
- Decision date
- 24 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Mykoo
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing by CVP in Cambridge on 16 December 2022, Employment Judge Tynan, sitting alone, considered the respondent's application dated 26 August 2022 to set aside the Tribunal's earlier decision to accept the claim. The Tribunal held that it was necessary in the interests of justice to set aside that decision because the respondent had not been given a reasonable opportunity to make representations before the claim was accepted.
The Tribunal further found that the proceedings were "relevant proceedings" within section 18 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. It recorded that when the proceedings were instituted on 24 April 2022, ACAS had not issued the claimant with a certificate under section 18(4). By reason of section 18(8), the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim at that stage and therefore rejected it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal set aside its earlier acceptance of the claim on the respondent's application and held that, because no ACAS certificate had been issued when the proceedings were instituted on 24 April 2022, it had no jurisdiction under section 18 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. The claim was rejected. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 18 Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- section 18(4) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- section 18(8) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
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.