Case 1600612/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Ward v Blueprint Life Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600612/2019
- Decision date
- 2 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Ward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The respondent did not submit an ET3 response form, and the Employment Judge said there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination. On that basis, Mr D Ward’s claims for holiday pay and arrears of pay against Blueprint Life Limited were upheld.
The decision was expressly limited to liability. No remedy figures were assessed in this judgment, and the matter was listed to proceed to a separate remedy hearing before an Employment Judge sitting alone, with a time estimate of one hour.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Liability only judgment; remedy to be determined at a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this claim as 'Arrears of Pay'. Liability only judgment; remedy to be determined at a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.