Case 2301004/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Riley v Digital Mauve Ltd t/a Mauve Partnership — 2020
- Case reference
- 2301004/2020
- Decision date
- 14 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Riley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which the respondent did not enter a response. Employment Judge Andrews amended the respondent’s name to Digital Mauve Ltd t/a Mauve Partnership and recorded that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because Mr Riley did not have the required two years’ continuous service at the date his employment ended.
The tribunal entered judgment for Mr Riley on his claims of breach of contract, unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay. The judgment does not set out the underlying facts for those claims, but the outcome was entered because of the respondent’s failure to respond.
No remedy figure was determined in this judgment. The tribunal stated that remedy would be decided at a later Remedy Hearing, and that the respondent would only be permitted to participate to the extent allowed by the judge hearing that hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have sufficient continuous service of two years at termination to bring the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Judgment entered for the claimant after the respondent failed to enter a response; remedy was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this claim as unpaid wages; judgment was entered for the claimant under Rule 21, with remedy deferred. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to this claim as unpaid holiday pay; judgment was entered for the claimant under Rule 21, with remedy to be determined later. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.