Case 1400373/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss AR Miner v Paul Buckingham and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400373/2020
- Decision date
- 25 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss AR Miner
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondents failed to present responses to the claims. The tribunal recorded that the age discrimination claim was dismissed on the claimant's withdrawal, and that the claimant succeeded on the remaining claims: unauthorised deduction from wages, breach of contract in respect of notice, unfair dismissal, and failure to provide written particulars of employment.
The judgment did not assess compensation. It directed that the remedy due to the claimant would be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing, estimated at two hours, and that notice of that hearing would be sent to the parties separately.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the age discrimination claim was dismissed on its withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondents made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant was found to have been unfairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The respondents failed to provide the claimant with written particulars of employment. | Upheld | — | — |
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.