Case 3332108/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Nicholas Bidnell-Edwards, of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3332108/2018
- Decision date
- 14 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Nicholas Bidnell-Edwards, of Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary judgment on whether the claim had been brought against the correct respondent. Employment Judge Hyams held that the ET1 should be read literally, and on that basis the claim had been made against the party named in the early conciliation certificate, so rule 12(1)(f) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 did not apply.
The judge then substituted UNISON Essex Partnership University Trust Branch for Essex Partnership University Foundation Trust as the respondent under rule 34. The reasoning was that the proper respondent had been aware of the claim from the start and that substitution was consistent with the overriding objective. The claim against Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Procedural dismissal only: the judgment dismissed the claim against Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust after substituting UNISON Essex Partnership University Trust Branch as the proper respondent. No merits findings or remedy were determined in this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- rule 12(1)(f) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 12(2A) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 34 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Drake International Systems Ltd v Blue Arrow Ltd [2016] ICR 445
- Chard v Trowbridge Office Cleaning Services Ltd UKEAT/0254/16
- rule 2 overriding objective
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.