Mr B Donnelly v Flexi Recruitment Services Ltd and Wincanton Ltd Wincanton plc: 6027164/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant’s email of 6 February 2026 is treated as an application under Rule 7(2) of the ET Procedure Rules 2024 (the “Rules”) for the following decisions of Legal Officer Singh to be considered afresh:1.1 the decision that the claimant was withdrawing his claims against both the first and the second respondents by his email of 19 September 2025;1.2 the decision to dismiss those claims upon withdrawal in accordance with rules 50 and 51 of the Rules.[2]Considering the matter afresh, I [the Employment Judge] I find that the claimant did not withdraw his claim against the second respondent, I set aside the judgment against them, and I reinstate that claim. This does not affect the claim against the first respondent, which remains withdrawn and dismissedREASONS
[3]I [Employment Judge Camp, in the Employment Tribunals in Birmingham] note that none, or almost none, of the claimant’s correspondence was copied to the respondents’ representatives and that this is a breach of Rule 90 the Rules. On this occasion, it is in the interests of justice for me to look at the claimant’s correspondence anyway, but the claimant must comply with that Rule in the future.[4]The claimant has brought claims against two respondents. On 19 September 2025 he wrote to the Tribunal stating that, “The parties to the above claim have agreed a settlement of the proceedings through ACAS” and that he wished “to withdraw my entire claim under Case Number Case Number: 6027164/2025 against the Respondent 1 only 1 of 4 Case No: 6027164/2025 namely [Flexible Recruitment Services Limited], with immediate effect”. That withdrawal request was not fully processed until 6 February 2026, when Legal Officer Singh’s Rule 51 judgment against both respondents was sent to the parties. Issuing such a judgment was obviously a mistake, as the claimant had explicitly withdrawn his claim against the first respondent only. In the circumstances, there was no basis for the judgment against the second respondent and it is set aside.