Case 3323249/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Williams v Cool Shop Air Conditioning Ltd Heard: Remotely by video — 2022
- Case reference
- 3323249/2021
- Decision date
- 8 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Williams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Williams was employed by Cool Shop Air Conditioning Ltd from 2 August 2021 to 8 November 2021. At the public preliminary hearing on 19 August 2022, the tribunal corrected the respondent's name to Cool Shop Air Conditioning Ltd.
The claimant presented his ET1 on 1 December 2021. In the form he indicated that he did not have an ACAS early conciliation certificate because his employer had already been in touch with ACAS. When the tribunal queried the position, he produced an early conciliation certificate issued on 2 December 2021 naming "Cool Stop Ltd" as the prospective respondent.
The tribunal found that the claimant had presented the ET1 before obtaining a valid ACAS early conciliation certificate and that the form did not contain the required early conciliation number or an applicable exemption. Relying on Miss J Pryce v Baxterstory Limited [2022] EAT 61 and the mandatory requirements in the Employment Tribunals Rules, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction under sections 18A(1) and (8) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. It dismissed the claimant's complaints in their entirety; the claimant's absence from the hearing made no difference to the outcome, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Part of the claimant's complaints about arrears of pay; the tribunal dismissed the claim in entirety for lack of jurisdiction under sections 18A(1) and (8) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, without determining the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Part of the claimant's notice pay complaints; the tribunal dismissed the claim in entirety for lack of jurisdiction under sections 18A(1) and (8) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, without determining the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- sections 18A(1) and (8) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 10
- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 8
- Miss J Pryce v Baxterstory Limited [2022] EAT 61
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.