Case 2204564/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Barrington v Michael Fuchs and 3 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2204564/2022
- Decision date
- 6 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr R Barrington
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 6 March 2023, Employment Judge Davidson held that the claims against the first and second respondents were dismissed because those respondents were not the claimant's employer. The judgment therefore left the third respondent as the relevant respondent for the substantive claims.
The third respondent had failed to enter a response within the time limit and had withdrawn its application for an extension of time. In consequence, the claimant's claims against the third respondent for unfair dismissal and money claims succeeded in default. The judgment did not determine quantum at this stage and listed a remedy hearing for 21 June 2023, at which the third respondent was permitted to take part.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The third respondent failed to present a response in time and withdrew its application for an extension of time, so the unfair dismissal claim succeeded in default. The first and second respondents were dismissed from the proceedings because they were not the claimant's employer. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers only to 'money claims' and does not specify the legal basis of those claims. They succeeded in default against the third respondent. | 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.