Case 2200493/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Williams v Ten80 Group Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2200493/2021
- Decision date
- 8 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response to the claim had been presented. Applying Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaints of disability discrimination and unlawful deduction from wages succeeded. The judgment does not set out a remedy award in this decision; it says the case would proceed to a hearing on remedy on 13 September 2021.
The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint did not proceed on the merits. The tribunal struck it out because the claimant did not have the 2 years' continuous employment needed for the tribunal to have jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal complaint. The respondent was told it could attend the remedy hearing, but only to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge hearing the case.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that, because no response had been presented, the claimant's complaint of disability discrimination succeeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that, because no response had been presented, the claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction from wages succeeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant did not have the 2 years' continuous employment necessary for the tribunal to have jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- 2 years' continuous employment requirement
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.