Case 1601724/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Goodridge v David Watkins Legal Ltd Trading As David Watkins & Co. — 2019
- Case reference
- 1601724/2019
- Decision date
- 13 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moore
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Goodridge
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent did not file an ET3 response. Employment Judge Moore stated that there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination and upheld the claimant's breach of contract and unpaid wages claims. The judgment does not record any monetary award for those claims.
The sex discrimination claim was not determined in this judgment. The tribunal said the matter would proceed to a half-day hearing to determine liability and remedy in respect of the sex discrimination claim, and remedy for the remaining claims. The judgment therefore records default findings on the contractual and wages claims only, with the discrimination issue left for later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment upheld this claim in the absence of an ET3 response. No monetary figure is stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment uses the wording 'Unpaid Wages' and upheld that claim under Rule 21. No monetary figure is stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.