Case 1600113/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Thomas (Nee - Dampier) Mr J Bayford Mr C Field v Chris Smart (deceased) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600113/2019
- Decision date
- 22 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moore Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Thomas (Nee - Dampier) Mr J Bayford Mr C Field
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Moore determined the claims in the absence of an ET3 response form from the respondent, Chris Smart (deceased), and stated that there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination. The judgment upheld the claims for breach of contract and wages on liability only under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment did not assess remedy. It states that the matter would proceed to a separate remedy hearing before an Employment Judge sitting alone, with an estimated duration of one hour.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment upheld this claim on liability only after the respondent did not present an ET3 response form. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this claim as 'Wages'; it was upheld on liability only and no remedy sum was fixed in this decision. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.