Case 2300835/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Luton v Oyster Pearl Bar & Restaurant Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300835/2019
- Decision date
- 10 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Luton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ferguson recorded on 10 September 2019 that Oyster Pearl Bar & Restaurant Ltd had failed to enter a response to the claim. On that basis, and under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, judgment was entered for Mr R Luton.
The judgment states only that the claim succeeds and that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a later remedy hearing. It does not set out separate liability findings for individual heads of claim or record any monetary award in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the Respondent failed to enter a response and that judgment was entered under Rule 21. It does not give claim-specific reasoning or a split of the claims; the claim is recorded as succeeding at this stage, with remedy to be determined later. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment records that the Respondent failed to enter a response and that judgment was entered under Rule 21. It does not give claim-specific reasoning or a split of the claims; the claim is recorded as succeeding at this stage, with remedy to be determined later. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the Respondent failed to enter a response and that judgment was entered under Rule 21. It does not give claim-specific reasoning or a split of the claims; the claim is recorded as succeeding at this stage, with remedy to be determined later. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the Respondent failed to enter a response and that judgment was entered under Rule 21. It does not give claim-specific reasoning or a split of the claims; the claim is recorded as succeeding at this stage, with remedy to be determined later. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that the Respondent failed to enter a response and that judgment was entered under Rule 21. It does not give claim-specific reasoning or a split of the claims; the claim is recorded as succeeding at this stage, with remedy to be determined later. |
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.