Case 1401316/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Richards v The Rabbit Hole Bristol Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1401316/2019
- Decision date
- 10 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Richards
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Livesey recorded that the claim succeeds. The judgment itself does not set out the underlying facts, findings on liability, or a breakdown between individual heads of claim.
The only remedy information recorded in the judgment is that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled would be determined at a 1-hour Remedy Hearing listed for 10:00am on Friday 8 November 2019 at Bristol Civil Justice Centre. The hearing listed for 30-31 October 2019 was cancelled. No monetary award is stated in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and does not break down the successful claims individually; this claim type is inferred from the published case listing categories. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and does not break down the successful claims individually; this claim type is inferred from the published case listing categories. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and does not break down the successful claims individually; this claim type is inferred from the published case listing categories. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and does not break down the successful claims individually; this claim type is inferred from the published case listing categories. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and does not break down the successful claims individually; this claim type is inferred from the published case listing categories. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Used for the published listing category referring to a written pay statement issue, which is not represented by a dedicated enum; the judgment itself does not specify claim-by-claim details. |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.
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.