Case 1602448/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mark Leyland v Oakhome Construction Limited (in liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602448/2024
- Decision date
- 8 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Povey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mark Leyland
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which the claim was issued in the Wales Employment Tribunal on 5 June 2024. The Respondent, Oakhome Construction Limited (in liquidation), failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment states that the claim succeeds. It does not identify the individual causes of action in the extracted text, and it does not record any liability findings beyond the Rule 21 determination. The judgment also does not set out any remedy figures.
The tribunal directed that the remedy to which the Claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing. No further substantive findings, legal tests, or awards are recorded in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Rule 21 judgment. The Respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal decided a determination could properly be made under rule 21 and held that the claim succeeds; remedy was deferred to a Remedy Hearing. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.