Case 1802180/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Emptage v Eminox Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1802180/2020
- Decision date
- 12 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Emptage
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the respondent's response because the respondent had not complied with the Tribunal's orders and did not make written representations or request a hearing in response to the Tribunal's letter. The judgment records that the respondent would still be entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions, but could only participate to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge.
Following strike out of the response, the tribunal held that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were well founded and succeeded. Remedy was not determined in this judgment; instead, the tribunal directed that remedy would be dealt with at a later hearing listed for three hours by video link unless the claimant could not participate in that way.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The response was struck out under rule 37. The tribunal stated that the claimant's complaint was well founded and succeeded. The reasons also refer to an apparent date inconsistency in the extracted text: a letter dated 12 January 2021 refers to Tribunal orders dated 26 August 2021. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The response was struck out under rule 37. The tribunal stated that the claimant's complaint was well founded and succeeded. The reasons also refer to an apparent date inconsistency in the extracted text: a letter dated 12 January 2021 refers to Tribunal orders dated 26 August 2021. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.