Case 1401936/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Richardson Gill Ltd and Champion Holmes Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1401936/2019
- Decision date
- 22 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 liability-only judgment. The Employment Judge recorded that no response to the claim had been presented by the 1st Respondent, Richardson Gill Limited, and on the information before the tribunal judgment was entered for the claimant, Mrs L Skotzen, against the 1st Respondent in respect of unfair dismissal, unpaid notice pay, and unpaid holiday pay.
The judgment did not determine remedy. It stated that the claim remained listed for hearing on 9 and 10 September 2019, so the order recorded liability only and did not contain any award figures or findings on quantum.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability-only judgment entered under Rule 21 because the 1st Respondent प्रस्तुत no response to the claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment entered for the claimant against the 1st Respondent in respect of unpaid notice pay. No separate monetary award is stated in this liability-only judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment entered for the claimant against the 1st Respondent in respect of unpaid holiday pay. No separate monetary award is stated in this liability-only judgment. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.