Case 2301048/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Pinto v T Brown Group — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301048/2020
- Decision date
- 30 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Keogh Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Pinto
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 15 March 2020. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment records that the claim succeeds. It does not set out the individual heads of claim or any factual findings on liability beyond the Rule 21 default judgment procedure.
The remedy was not determined in this judgment. The tribunal stated that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and does not identify the individual heads of claim in the extracted text; it states only that the claim succeeds and that remedy will be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.