Case 2203706/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Eurorient Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2203706/2019
- Decision date
- 5 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JL Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file ET3 grounds of resistance. Employment Judge JL Wade therefore determined the case on the papers under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, and the hearing listed for 3-4 March 2020 was vacated.
The tribunal held that Eurorient Limited had unfairly dismissed Mr C Marshall and had unlawfully failed to pay notice pay and wages. It ordered payment of £15,120 described as 'Basic award/redundancy pay', together with £4,589.28 for notice pay and £382.44 net for wages.
The judgment gives no further reasoning beyond the rule 21 default decision and the award figures. The total sum ordered was £20,091.72.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant and orders a 'Basic award/redundancy pay' of £15,120. | Upheld | — | £15,120 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment orders notice pay of £4,589.28. | Upheld | — | £4,589 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment orders wages of £382.44 net. | Upheld | — | £382 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,092
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £15,120
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.