Case 2206048/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Garcia v Bellus Print Ltd and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2206048/2019
- Decision date
- 26 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr L Garcia
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response to the claim had been presented by either respondent. Applying Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, Regional Employment Judge Wade Date held that the claimant's complaints of age discrimination and sex discrimination succeeded against both respondents.
The judgment did not set out findings on liability beyond the absence of a response. It directed that the hearing listed for 5 March 2021 would proceed to consider remedy, and stated that the respondents could attend that hearing but could only participate to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge who heard the case.
No monetary award was made in this judgment. Remedy was left outstanding for the later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Rule 21 judgment: no response was presented by either respondent, so the claimant's age discrimination complaint succeeded against both respondents. Remedy was not decided in this judgment. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Rule 21 judgment: no response was presented by either respondent, so the claimant's sex discrimination complaint succeeded against both respondents. Remedy was not decided in this judgment. | Upheld | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.