Case 2211473/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Christopher Brock v Scoop and Spoon Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2211473/2023
- Decision date
- 13 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Christopher Brock
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under Rule 21 after the respondent, Scoop and Spoon Limited (in voluntary liquidation), failed to file an ET3 and stated that it would not be defending the claim. Employment Judge Smart considered the ET1 and the claimant’s correspondence and entered judgment on the basis of those materials alone.
The tribunal held that the claims for unfair dismissal, a redundancy payment, breach of contract, arrears of wages, and holiday pay succeeded. The breach of contract claim was identified as including notice pay and expenses. The judgment does not set out separate liability reasoning beyond the Rule 21 decision, and it does not quantify any award.
The tribunal recorded that remedy would be determined at a later Remedy Hearing. No monetary figures were fixed in this judgment and no apportionment was made between the successful heads of claim.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Respondent failed to file an ET3 and said it would not be defending the claim; the claim succeeded on the papers under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim for a redundancy payment succeeded on the papers under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim succeeded, including notice pay and expenses. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for arrears of wages succeeded; the judgment does not separate any monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for holiday pay succeeded; the judgment does not separate any monetary amount. | 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.