Case 3309875/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Pickering v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309875/2022
- Decision date
- 9 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murphy Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Pickering
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 2 March 2023, the claimant accepted that the respondent had been incorrectly named in the claim form. By consent, Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service was removed as a party under Rule 34 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013.
The judgment records that the correct respondent is the Secretary of State for Justice, who was added to the proceedings by a case management order of the same date. The proceedings against HMPPS were dismissed. The judgment does not decide the merits of the substantive claims and no remedy is awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that the claimant accepted he had incorrectly named the respondent. HMPPS was removed as a party by consent under Rule 34 and the proceedings against HMPPS were dismissed; the correct respondent was added. The judgment does not determine the substantive unfair dismissal or sex discrimination claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 34 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.