Case 1310701/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Hunter-Finn (Claimant’s brother) For the v D W Estates & Leisure Ltd T/a Inn-Credible Pub Co — 2021
- Case reference
- 1310701/2020
- Decision date
- 4 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lloyd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Hunter-Finn (Claimant’s brother) For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held a preliminary hearing by telephone on 27 April 2021. The respondent did not attend, had not presented a response, and a Rule 21 letter had been issued on 8 April 2021. On the basis of the information available, Employment Judge Lloyd entered judgment against the respondent in the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and unpaid wages.
No reasons on the merits or quantum were set out in this short judgment, and no financial award was fixed at this stage. The tribunal instead listed a remote remedy hearing by CVP for 7 July 2021 at 10.00am, with a time estimate of one day, before an Employment Judge sitting alone. An order for directions to the claimant was issued with the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment entered under Rule 21; no merits reasons or monetary award were set out in this document. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Judgment entered under Rule 21; no merits reasons or monetary award were set out in this document. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to the claim as 'unpaid wages'; this has been mapped to the nearest enum category. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.