Case 1602805/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Enea v Croseo Pubs Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602805/2023
- Decision date
- 6 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharp Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Enea
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Wales Employment Tribunals in November 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Sharp decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the claim succeeded. The judgment does not set out the underlying factual allegations or the legal basis of the claim in any further detail, but it records that the claimant was entitled to succeed in default because no valid response had been filed.
The tribunal did not quantify any losses in this judgment. It recorded that the remedy to which the claimant was entitled would be determined once the losses had been quantified, and it cancelled the hearing listed for 26 February 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not identify the specific working time complaint beyond referring to 'the claim'. The outcome was a Rule 21 default judgment in the claimant's favour, with remedy to be determined after loss quantification. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.