Case 1601050/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr RO Jones v The Vale Of Glamorgan — 2019
- Case reference
- 1601050/2019
- Decision date
- 24 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr RO Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr RO Jones, brought an unfair dismissal claim against The Vale of Glamorgan. The respondent did not file an ET3 response form. Employment Judge Brace stated that there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination and therefore upheld the unfair dismissal claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment was expressly confined to liability only. It records that the matter would proceed to a remedy hearing before an Employment Judge sitting alone. No monetary award was assessed in this judgment, and no split of any award by head of loss was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability-only judgment. The respondent did not present an ET3 response form, and the Employment Judge said there was sufficient material to determine the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. Remedy was left to a later hearing before an Employment Judge sitting alone. | 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.