Case 3305125/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr H Addy v West Suffolk Council — 2023

Case reference: 3305125/2022
Decision date: 24 January 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Laidler JUDGMENT

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr H Addy

Respondent

West Suffolk Council

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

A default judgment on liability had been entered because no Response had been received from the respondent and there was no information on the file about an ACAS settlement. A remedy hearing was listed on that basis.

The respondent then applied for reconsideration, saying that an ACAS settlement had in fact been reached on 9 June 2022 and that the application was made jointly by the parties. The Employment Judge referred to rules 70 to 72 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, which permit reconsideration where it is necessary in the interests of justice.

The judge concluded that the earlier judgment should never have been entered because the parties had already settled. The reconsideration application was granted and the judgment was set aside.

The final order records that all claims were dismissed on withdrawal following the COT3. No monetary remedy was awarded or assessed in this decision.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The reconsidered judgment records that all claims were dismissed on withdrawal following a COT3 entered into between the parties on 9 June 2022.	Withdrawn	—	—

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.