Case 2201464/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Goda v Izakaya Soho Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201464/2019
- Decision date
- 27 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Goda
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an interlocutory judgment by Employment Judge A James sitting alone on 27 January 2020, not a final determination of the underlying employment claims. The tribunal heard from Mr G Goda in person and from Mr R Prais for the respondent, considered the respondent's written submissions, the witness statement of Mr Sonny Huang, live evidence from Mr Huang, and further submissions from both sides.
The tribunal set aside the previous Judgment of Employment Judge Goodman dated 19 August 2019 under rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The reason given was that the interests of justice required it, and the judge said he was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent did not receive the Employment Tribunal claim form.
The tribunal also granted the respondent leave to present a response to the claim form out of time and to continue to defend the proceedings. No substantive liability findings or remedy awards were made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment did not determine the substantive employment claims. It set aside the earlier judgment dated 19 August 2019 under rule 70 and allowed the respondent to defend the proceedings out of time. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 70 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- interests of justice
- balance of probabilities
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.