Mr L Emes v Enersys UK Ltd — 2020

Case reference: 1600602/2020
Decision date: 6 November 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge S Davies Representation
Venue: Cardiff

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr L Emes

Respondent

Enersys UK Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The only claim identifiable from the listing and judgment context is an unfair dismissal claim by Mr L Emes against Enersys Limited. At the hearing on 22 October 2020 before Acting Regional Employment Judge S Davies, the parties appeared by video and represented by Mr Windross for the claimant and Mr Dando for the respondent.

The judgment records that, by consent, the hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to implement agreed terms of settlement. The order also provided that either party could apply to restore the case for further hearing in default.

The judgment does not contain findings on liability or remedy. It further stated that, if no application to restore the case was received by 10 November 2020, the claim would stand dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	By consent, the hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to implement agreed terms of settlement. The order stated that either party could apply to restore the case for further hearing in default, and that if no such application was received by 10 November 2020 the claim would stand dismissed.	Settled	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.