Case 1403918/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Tuckwell v EMCO Capital Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1403918/2021
- Decision date
- 25 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Tuckwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 7 October 2021. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Midgley said that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 25 March 2022 was cancelled.
The tribunal ordered EMCO Capital Ltd to pay Mr L Tuckwell £5,137.61 in total. The written judgment does not break that sum down between the individual heads of claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment was made under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The written record does not split the total award between the pleaded heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment was made under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The written record does not split the total award between the pleaded heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment was made under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The written record does not split the total award between the pleaded heads of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,138
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.