Case 3323612/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Lineker v Biffa plc UPON APPLICATION made by letter dated 26 November 2019 to reconsider the — 2019
- Case reference
- 3323612/2019
- Decision date
- 31 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bartlett
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Lineker
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reconsideration judgment made without a hearing under rules 70 to 73 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The earlier judgment of 19 November 2019 had dismissed the proceedings after what appeared to be a withdrawal by the claimant.
The tribunal accepted that, at the time the dismissal judgment was made, it had not been aware of the claimant’s email sent on 31 October 2019 at 3.14 pm asking for his previous email saying he wished to withdraw the case to be ignored. It also accepted his evidence that he had spoken to a member of the administration team about this on that day.
The tribunal decided there was no need for a hearing under rule 72(2), noting that there had been no representations from the respondent and that the original judgment had been made on the papers. In the interests of justice, it reconsidered the earlier decision, revoked the dismissal judgment, and reinstated the claims. No merits findings or remedy were made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment was on reconsideration only. The tribunal revoked the 19 November 2019 dismissal judgment, which had been entered following an apparent withdrawal, and reinstated the claims. It did not determine the underlying substantive claims on their merits. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rules 70 to 73
- rule 71
- rule 72(2)
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.