Case 1601365/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Purchase & Others v Sinatra’s Bars & Clubs Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1601365/2019
- Decision date
- 7 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Purchase & Others
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Harfield dealt with the matter in the absence of an ET3 response form from the respondent and recorded that there was sufficient material to enable a proper determination to be made. On that basis, and acting under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal upheld the claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, breach of contract, and unpaid wages brought by Miss D Purchase and others against Sinatra’s Bars & Clubs Limited.
The judgment was expressly limited to liability. No remedy was determined in this decision, and the tribunal stated that the case would proceed to a separate remedy hearing before an Employment Judge sitting alone, with a time estimate of one hour.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment entered on liability only under Rule 21 after no ET3 response from the respondent. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Judgment entered on liability only under Rule 21 after no ET3 response from the respondent. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Judgment entered on liability only under Rule 21 after no ET3 response from the respondent. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this claim as unpaid wages and upholds it on liability only. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 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.