Case 1600654/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr I Hughes v Gwynedd Council and 1 other — 2019

Case reference: 1600654/2018
Decision date: 10 March 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Vernon

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr I Hughes

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

These linked proceedings, case numbers 1600654/2018 and 1600655/2018, were determined under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after the second respondent was served at its registered office by letter dated 7 January 2019 and did not present a response within the required period.

Employment Judge Vernon recorded that the claimant's claims succeed against the second respondent. The judgment did not set out any substantive liability reasoning beyond the rule 21 default process, and it directed that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled against the second respondent would be determined at a remedy hearing.

No monetary award was made in this judgment. The document therefore records success on the claims against the second respondent only, with remedy left open for later determination.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Transfer of undertakings (TUPE)	Rule 21 default judgment. The claim was served on the second respondent on 7 January 2019 and the second respondent did not file a response within the required period. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims succeed against the second respondent, with remedy to be determined at a remedy hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Unfair dismissal	Rule 21 default judgment. The claim was served on the second respondent on 7 January 2019 and the second respondent did not file a response within the required period. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims succeed against the second respondent, with remedy to be determined at a remedy hearing.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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.

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.