Case 1803562/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M A Patel v Nutrition Bloom Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1803562/2019
- Decision date
- 9 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M A Patel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M A Patel, presented claims of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday pay against Nutrition Bloom Limited. Notice of the claim was sent to the respondent on 4 July 2019, and no response was presented. The tribunal therefore entered a Rule 21 judgment and recorded that the claims of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday pay succeed.
The judgment states that the remedy for the successful claims would be determined at a Remedy Hearing, and that the hearing listed on 24 October 2019 was converted to a Remedy Hearing for that purpose. In the reasons, the judge said the time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been presented, and on the information before the tribunal the claims succeed. The final sentence of the reasons refers to "disability discrimination", but the operative claim list and disposal in the judgment identify only unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday pay, so no separate discrimination claim is extracted here.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment. No response was presented by the respondent. Remedy was deferred to a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. No response was presented by the respondent. Remedy was deferred to a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment. No response was presented by the respondent. Remedy was deferred to a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 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.