Claimant v Scot Group Ltd T/A Thrifty Car and Van Rental
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant withdrew his claim on 30 and 31 May 2024, stating this was due to a costs warning from the respondent. The withdrawal was made with ACAS assistance leading to a COT3 agreement signed by the claimant. The tribunal dismissed the claim following withdrawal on 28 October 2024.
This claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant at a preliminary hearing on 21 July 2023 before Employment Judge Manley.
This claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant at a preliminary hearing on 21 July 2023 before Employment Judge Manley.
While originally pleaded in the ET1, this claim appears to have been withdrawn or not pursued as only constructive unfair dismissal was set to proceed to final hearing after the July 2023 preliminary hearing.
While originally pleaded in the ET1, this claim appears to have been withdrawn or not pursued as only constructive unfair dismissal was set to proceed to final hearing after the July 2023 preliminary hearing.
Facts
The claimant brought claims including constructive unfair dismissal, age discrimination, breach of contract, harassment and victimisation. All claims except constructive dismissal were withdrawn at a preliminary hearing in July 2023. Days before the final hearing in June 2024, the claimant withdrew his remaining claim after receiving a costs warning from the respondent, signing a COT3 agreement with ACAS assistance. The claimant subsequently wrote to the tribunal stating the withdrawal was under duress, but the claim was dismissed on 28 October 2024. The claimant applied for reconsideration.
Decision
Employment Judge Graham refused the reconsideration application. The judge found no reasonable prospect of varying or revoking the dismissal judgment. The claimant had withdrawn with ACAS support and confirmed withdrawal twice in writing. The alleged new evidence regarding workforce turnover was not shown to be genuinely new or relevant. While acknowledging a costs warning could create pressure, the ACAS involvement and repeated confirmation of withdrawal meant it was not in the interests of justice to reconsider.
Practical note
A withdrawal made with ACAS assistance and confirmed in writing on multiple occasions will rarely be set aside on reconsideration, even where the withdrawing party claims duress from costs warnings, unless there is compelling evidence the withdrawal was not truly voluntary.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 3309873/2022
- Decision date
- 31 January 2025
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No