Case 1601763/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Hunt v Mr C Gayle and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601763/2019
- Decision date
- 29 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Brace Dated
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs S Hunt
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal said there was no ET3 response form from the respondents and that there was sufficient material before it to make a proper determination. It therefore acted under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and upheld the claimant's claims on liability.
The claims upheld were a claim under s.57A Employment Rights Act 1996, a claim under s.99(3)(d) Employment Rights Act 1996, and a breach of contract claim. The judgment does not set out further factual findings or reasons beyond the default judgment basis for determining liability.
This was expressly a liability-only judgment. The tribunal stated that the matter would proceed to a Remedy Hearing on a date to be fixed, and it did not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment identifies this only as a claim under s.57A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment identifies this only as a claim under s.99(3)(d) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment upheld the breach of contract claim on liability only. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.