Case 1401771/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Giannotti Lopez v MC Air Conditioning Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1401771/2019
- Decision date
- 7 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Giannotti Lopez
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis judgment is a strike-out decision on the respondent's response, not a merits determination of the underlying claim. The Tribunal had previously written on 5 September 2019 giving the respondent an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the response should not be struck out because it had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 27 June 2019, reminders having been sent on 14 and 27 August 2019, and because it had not been actively pursued.
The respondent did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Dawson struck out the response. The judgment states that the respondent remains entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions, but may only participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge. No remedy or award is recorded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the respondent's response under rule 37 for failure to comply with the Tribunal's order dated 27 June 2019 and for not having been actively pursued. It does not determine the underlying merits claim. | Struck out | — | — |
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.