Case 1807333/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Townsley v Eden Mobility Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1807333/2019
- Decision date
- 14 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Townsley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which the Respondent, Eden Mobility Ltd, failed to present a response to the claim. The tribunal recorded that the claims of unauthorised deduction from wages and unfair dismissal succeeded.
The judgment did not set out substantive findings on liability beyond noting the absence of a response. It did not determine compensation in this decision. Instead, the tribunal directed that the remedy would be decided at a Remedy Hearing listed for 10:00am on 5 March 2020.
The hearing listed on 3 April 2020 was cancelled. The judgment was given by Employment Judge Cox on 14 January 2020.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment entered because the Respondent failed to present a response to the claim. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was listed for a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment entered because the Respondent failed to present a response to the claim. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was listed for a later 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.