Case 1401497/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Justice v J B Hopkins Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401497/2022
- Decision date
- 19 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Justice
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr D Justice, did not attend the hearing in Southampton on 12 October 2022. The Employment Judge accepted that an incorrect ACAS Early Conciliation number on the claim form was caused by an error and held that it was not in the interests of justice to reject the claim, so the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider it. The Tribunal also decided not to postpone the hearing of its own motion and proceeded in the claimant's absence.
The respondent applied to strike out all claims under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules, but that application was refused. The Tribunal then heard evidence from the respondent and closing submissions. The judgment identifies three claims before the Tribunal: an automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 100(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996, a detriment claim under section 44(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996, and a wrongful dismissal claim.
After considering the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal dismissed all claims. The judgment does not record any remedy award, and no separate compensation figures are set out for any individual claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 100(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed after the Respondent's evidence and submissions. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Detriment claim under section 44(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed. The judgment does not allocate a more specific taxonomy category for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal claim; dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.